Article

Translocation renal cell carcinoma: lack of negative impact due to lymph node spread.

Department of Hematology Oncology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 05/2008; 112(7):1607-16.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pediatric renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is clinically distinct from adult RCC. Characterization of the unique biological and clinical features of pediatric RCC are required.
A retrospective review and biological analysis of all RCC cases presenting to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) in the last 30 years was undertaken. Cases were classified according to the recent World Heath Organization morphologic classification and according to TFE3/TFEB status. A literature review of pediatric TFE+ cases was performed.
Eleven cases of RCC with clinical data were identified in our institutional review as follows: 6 clear cell, 2 papillary, 2 translocation, and 1 sarcomatoid. Upon reanalysis, 1 papillary and 1 sarcomatoid were confirmed, 1 case was "unclassified", and 8 of 11 (72.7%) had features consistent with translocation morphology. Of these 8, all demonstrated immunoreactivity for TFE3 (7 patients) or TFEB (1 patient) protein. In 3 cases, cytogenetics was available, each demonstrating confirmatory MiTF/TFE translocations. Seven of 8 TFE+ RCC patients presented with TNM Stage III/IV disease. Literature analysis confirmed a significant increase in advanced stage presentation in pediatric TFE+ RCC compared with TFE- RCC. Fourteen of fifteen (93.3%) patients with TFE+ stage III/IV RCC due to lymph node spread (N+ M(0)) remain disease free with a median and mean follow-up of 4.4 and 6.3 years, respectively (range, 0.3-15.5).
Translocation morphology RCC is the predominant form of pediatric RCC, associated with an advanced stage at presentation. Patients with TFE+ N+ M(0) RCC maintain a favorable short-term prognosis after surgery alone. Young RCC patients should be screened for translocation morphology, and the screening information should be considered when debating adjuvant therapy.

0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context .- Eosinophilic renal neoplasms include a spectrum of solid and papillary tumors ranging from indolent benign oncocytoma to highly aggressive malignancies. Recognition of the correct nature of the tumor, especially in biopsy specimens, is paramount for patient management. Objective .- To review the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms with light microscopy and ancillary techniques. Data Sources .- Review of the published literature and personal experience. Conclusions .- The following tumors are in the differential diagnosis of oncocytic renal cell neoplasm: oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hybrid tumor, tubulocystic carcinoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC with predominant eosinophilic cell morphology, follicular thyroid-like RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, rhabdoid RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor translocation RCC, epithelioid angiomyolipoma, and unclassified RCC. In low-grade nonpapillary eosinophilic neoplasms, distinction between oncocytoma and low-grade RCC mostly rests on histomorphology; however, cytokeratin 7 immunostain may be helpful. In high-grade nonpapillary lesions, there is more of a role for ancillary techniques, including immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7, CA9, CD10, racemase, HMB45, and Melan-A. In papillary eosinophilic neoplasms, it is important to distinguish sporadic type 2 papillary RCC from microphthalmia transcription factor translocation and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. Histologic and cytologic features along with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB [t(6;11)] are reliable confirmatory tests. Eosinophilic epithelial neoplasms with architecture, cytology, and/or immunoprofile not qualifying for either of the established types of RCC should be classified as unclassified eosinophilic RCC and arbitrarily assigned a grade (low or high).
    Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 11/2014; 138(11):1531-41. DOI:10.5858/arpa.2013-0653-RA · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with t(6:11) (p21;q12) are extremely rare, fewer than 30 cases have been reported in literature. These tumors are characterized by specific chromosomal translocation involving TFEB, as against the more commonly known TFE3 (Xp11.2) translocation associated RCCs. The distinctive immnohistologic features are helpful in enabling a diagnosis of this rare tumor, otherwise diagnosed by fluorescence in situ hybridization assay, specific for detecting TFEB gene rearrangement. Presentation of case Herein, we report a case of this rare tumor in a 11 years old boy, with the objective of highlighting distinctive light microscopic and immuno-phenotypic features of this rare sub-type of translocation associated renal cell carcinoma, otherwise diagnosed by fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Morphologically tumor showed distinctive biphasic population of cells, large epitheloid cells with voluminous eosinophillic cytoplasm and smaller cells with much lesser amount of cytoplasm and small rounded nuclei. The smaller cells at places clustered around hyaline pink material forming “pseudorosettes”. population. Immunohistochemically both types of tumor cells showed negativity for pan CK (cytokeratin), EMA (epitheleal membrane antigen) and TFE3 (transcription factor E3). HMB 45 (human melanoma black 45) and Melan- A /MART 1 (melanoma antigen recognized by T cells) were moderate to strongly expressed. Discussion On review of literature, most RCCs with t(6;11) translocation have been reported to be negative for pan cytokeratins and EMA. Published literature also shows that the most distinctive immunohistochemical feature of t(6;11) translocation RCC is nuclear staining for TFEB protein. Immunostains for TFE3 have always been negative in the reported cases. It is noteworthy that immunoreactivity for melanocytic markers HMB45 and Melan A and immunonegativity for epithelial markers pan CK and EMA may lead to misdiagnosis of angiomyolipoma to the unwary. Conclusion Knowledge of distinctive morphological and immuno-histochemical features of this tumor can help in establishing a diagnosis of this rare subset of translocation associated RCC on routine hematoxylin and eosin (H and E) staining and immunophenotyping.
    12/2014; 24. DOI:10.1016/j.ijscr.2014.12.026
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been recognized as a rare and mostly nonaggressive tumor (NAT). The criteria for distinguishing aggressive tumors (AT) from NATs are not well established. A total of 6 cases were selected for the study. Five cases of t(6;11) RCCs behaved nonaggressively, and 1 was carcinoma with aggressive behavior. The tumors were analyzed morphologically using immunohistochemistry and by molecular-genetic methods. The specimen of aggressive t(6;11) RCC was from a 77-year-old woman who died of the disease 2.5 months after diagnosis. The specimens of nonaggressive t(6;11) RCCs were from 3 women and 2 men whose ages range between 15 and 54 years. Follow-up was available in all cases (2.5 months-8 years). The tumor size ranged from 3 to 14 cm in nonaggressive t(6;11) RCC. In the aggressive carcinoma, the tumor size was 12 cm. All tumors (6/6) were well circumscribed. Aggressive t(6;11) RCC was widely necrotic. Six (100%) of 6 all tumors displayed a solid/alveolar architecture with occasional tubules and pseudorosettes. Pseudopapillary formations lined by bizarre polymorphic cells were found focally in the aggressive t(6;11) RCC case. Mitoses, though rare, were found as well. All cases (AT and NAT) were positive for HMB-45, Melan-A, Cathepsin K, and cytokeratins. CD117 positivity was seen in 4 of 5 NATs, as well as in the primary and metastatic lesions of the AT. mTOR was positive in 2 of 5 NATs and vimentin in 4 of 5 NATs. Vimentin was negative in the primary lesion of the AT, as well as in the metastasis found in the adrenal gland. Translocation t(6;11)(Alpha-TFEB) or TFEB break was detected in 4 of 5 NATs and in the AT case. Aggressive tumor showed amplification of TFEB locus. Losses of part of chromosome 1 and chromosome 22 were found in 1 of 5 NATs and in the AT. Conclusions: (1) Aggressive t(6;11) RCCs generally occur in the older population in comparison with their indolent counterparts. (2) In regard to the histologic findings in ATs, 3 of 5 so far published cases were morphologically not typical for t(6;11) RCC. Of the 3 cases, 2 cases lacked a small cell component and 1 closely mimicked clear cell–type RCC. (3) Necroses were only present in aggressive t(6;11) RCC. (4) Amplification of TFEB locus was also found only in the aggressive t(6;11) RCC.
    Annals of Diagnostic Pathology 11/2014; 18(6):351-357. DOI:10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.10.002 · 1.11 Impact Factor