Article

Renal carcinomas with the t(6;11)(p21;q12): clinicopathologic features and demonstration of the specific alpha-TFEB gene fusion by immunohistochemistry, RT-PCR, and DNA PCR.

Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 03/2005; 29(2):230-40.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A highly distinctive subset of renal neoplasms of children and young adults contains a t(6;11)(p21;q12), a translocation recently been shown to result in fusion of Alpha, a gene on 11q12, with the transcription factor gene TFEB on 6p21. To define the clinicopathologic spectrum of this nascent entity and to establish immunohistochemical (IHC) and molecular methods for the detection of the specific Alpha-TFEB fusion, we studied 7 renal neoplasms that showed the t(6;11) by cytogenetic or molecular analysis (patient age: range, 9-33 years; mean, 17 years). While all tumors were confined to the kidney, 3 tumors demonstrated vascular invasion. In limited follow-up, none has metastasized. We postulated that the Alpha-TFEB gene fusion may result in deregulated expression of TFEB protein that would be detectable by IHC. Using a polyclonal antibody to TFEB on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections, we found that all 7 renal neoplasms with the t(6;11) demonstrated moderate (2 cases) or strong (5 cases) nuclear TFEB immunoreactivity. In contrast, none of 1089 other tumors (of 74 histologic types from 16 sites) labeled significantly for TFEB. Nuclear immunoreactivity for TFEB in normal tissues was extremely rare, limited to weak labeling of scattered benign lymphocytes. We also show that the Alpha-TFEB fusion RNAs are highly variable in size and structure, making detection by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) less reliable than for other gene fusions. Because Alpha is an intronless gene and therefore lacks splice signals, we hypothesized that DNA PCR and RT-PCR products would be identical, allowing for the use of more robust molecular assays based on genomic DNA. Indeed, in 2 cases with available frozen tissue, we showed the genomic Alpha-TFEB junction detected by DNA PCR to be identical to the Alpha-TFEB fusion mRNA detected by RT-PCR. In summary, renal neoplasms with the t(6;11) are a distinctive neoplastic entity with many similarities to the Xp11 translocation carcinomas, and together with the latter form a growing "MiTF/TFE family" of translocation carcinomas. Nuclear immunoreactivity for TFEB protein is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic marker for these renal neoplasms. Finally, the special molecular features of the Alpha-TFEB gene fusion allow its molecular detection by DNA PCR as a robust alternative to RT-PCR in clinical tumor samples.

0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is characterized by various translocations of the TFE3 transcription factor gene. These rare cancers occur predominantly in children and young adults. Here, we review the clinicopathological features of Xp11.2 translocation RCC. We identified 21 patients with Xp11.2 translocation RCC. We retrospectively analyzed patient characteristics, clinical manifestations, and specific pathological features to assess definitive diagnosis, surgical and systemic treatments, and clinical outcomes. The mean age at diagnosis was 43.4±20.0 years (range, 8-80 years; 8 males and 13 females). Eleven patients were incidentally diagnosed, nine patients presented with local symptoms, and one patient presented with systemic symptoms. The mean tumor size was 6.2±3.8 cm (range, 1.9-14 cm). At the time of diagnosis, 11, 1, and 5 patients showed stage I, II, and III, respectively. Four patients showed distant metastasis. At analysis, 15 patients were disease-free after a median follow-up period of 30.0 months. Four patients received target therapy but not effectively. Xp11 translocation RCC tends to develop in young patients with lymph node metastasis. Targeted therapy did not effectively treat our patients. Surgery is the only effective therapy for Xp11 translocation RCC, and further studies are needed to assess systemic therapy and long-term prognosis.
    Korean journal of urology 03/2015; 56(3):212-7. DOI:10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.212
  • 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
  • [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