Recommendations for the reporting of surgically resected specimens of renal cell carcinoma The Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

Article (PDF Available)inHuman pathology 40(4):456-63 · May 2009with89 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.12.004 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
A checklist based approach to reporting the relevant pathologic details of renal cell carcinoma resection specimens improves the completeness of the report. Karyotypic evaluation of renal neoplasms has refined but also complicated their classification. The number of diagnostic possibilities has increased and the importance of distinguishing different tumor types has been underscored by dramatic variation in prognosis and the development of targeted therapies for specific subtypes. The increasing number of recognized renal neoplasms has implications for handling renal resection specimens. Furthermore, the prognostic significance of other features of renal neoplasms related to grade and stage has been demonstrated. This guideline for the handling of renal resection specimens will focus on problem areas in the evolving practice of diagnosis, grading, and staging of renal neoplasms. The accompanying checklist will serve to ensure that all necessary details of the renal resection specimen are included in the surgical pathology report.
Current topics
Recommendations for the reporting of surgically resected
specimens of renal cell carcinoma
The Association of Directors of Anatomic
and Surgical Pathology
John P. Higgins MD
, Jesse K. McKenney MD, James D. Brooks MD,
Pedram Argani MD, Jonathan I. Epstein MD
Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94025, USA
Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94025, USA
Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA
Received 28 November 2008; accepted 11 December 2008
Keywords:
Surgical pathology;
Staging;
Histology;
Histopathology
Summary A checklist based approach to reporting the relevant pathologic details of renal cell
carcinoma resection specimens improves the completeness of the report. Karyotypic evaluation of renal
neoplasms has refined but also complicated their classification. The number of diagnostic possibilities
has increased and the importance of distinguishing different tumor types has been underscored by
dramatic variation in prognosis and the development of targeted therapies for specific subtypes. The
increasing number of recognized renal neoplasms has implications for handling renal resection
specimens. Furthermore, the prognostic significance of other features of renal neoplasms related to
grade and stage has been demonstrated. This guideline for the handling of renal resection specimens will
focus on problem areas in the evolving practice of diagnosis, grading, and staging of renal neoplasms.
The accompanying checklist will serve to ensure that all necessary details of the renal resection
specimen are included in the surgical pathology report.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Scope of the guidelines
The reporting of renal cell carcinoma is facilitated by the
provision of a checklist to insure that pathologists provide all
of the essential information to enable clinicians to optimize
patient care. Classification of renal tumors is complicated by
the wide range of morphological types of ren al cell
carcinoma, some of which have recognized subtypes.
Cytogenetic data have clarified the morphologic features of
some of these tumors, but such data are not routinely
available to assist most practicing pathologists attempting to
classify individual tumors. Nevertheless, consideration
should be given to cytogenetic evaluation for renal cortical
tumors in young patients or tumors of unusual morphologic
appearance regardless of the age of the patient. It is also
important to note that although the biologic aggressiveness
differs for the different types of renal cell carcinoma, staging
and grading of renal cell carcinoma is driven by the behavior
Corresponding author. Department of Pathology, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94025, USA.
E-mail address: john.higgins@stanford.edu (J. P. Higgins).
www.elsevier.com/locate/humpath
0046-8177/$ see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2008.12.004
Human Pathology (2009) 40, 456463
of clear cell carcinoma, the overwhelmingly most common
subtype. Several aspects of renal cell carcinoma classifica-
tion remain problematic. In spite of the large and growing
number of renal cell carcinoma subtypes, classification of
well-differentiated, low-grade tumors is relatively routine.
However, with increasing tumor grade, the features by which
renal cell carcinomas are classified may be lost or are at least
obscured. Subclassifications of papillary renal cell carci-
noma have been proposed but do not clearly have prognostic
relevance independent of nuclear grade [1]. The grading
scheme proposed by Fuhrman [2] and modifications thereof
are used to grade clear cell renal carcinomas, but this scheme
was developed before many renal cell carcinoma subtypes
were recognized and may not be applica ble to other
subtypes. Difficulties also arise with respect to the stage of
a renal carcinoma. In particular, it is difficult to assess the
point at which a carcinoma has extended beyond the kidney.
Based on the most current data, this guideline will attempt to
address these problematic points and suggest reasonable
means of providing the information called for in the
accompanying checklist.
Features the association recommends for inclusion in the
final report are selected based on the fact that they are
generally accepted as being of prognostic importance,
required for therapy, and/or traditionally expected (Appen-
dix). The guidelines adhere to the recommendations of the
2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer
Staging Manual [3], the prognostic relevance of which has
been validated [4]. However, it is important to note that the
recommendations are dynamic and are intended to change
according to the state of current knowledge to optimize the
prognostic usefulness of the TNM system [3]. Particular
attention is paid to stage groupings of the TNM system that
new data suggest contain subsets of patients with signifi-
cantly different outcome. For example, patients with
perinephric fat invasion and patients with direct ipsilateral
adrenal involvement are both pT3a, but several recent studies
suggest that adrenal involvement confers a significantly
worse prognosis [5-7]. This information may encourage a
pathologist to thoroughly sample the adrenal even in a
patient with clear evidence of perinephric fat invasion.
2. Gross description
A. How the specimen was received: fresh, in formalin,
intact, fragmented, morcellated, etc.
B. How the specimen was identified: labeled (name,
medical record number) and designated (eg, right
radical nephrectomy).
C. If the specimen is a radical nephrectomy, inspect the
external aspect of the specimen (Gerota fascia) for
evidence of tumor. Locate the ureteral and vascular
margins in the renal hilus. These may be sampled
before inking the specimen when they are most easily
identified. Hemostatic forceps should be placed on the
ureter so that its location remains clear during and after
inking. Ink the entire surface of the specimen.
Cannulate the ureter using a small metal probe. Open
the ureter longitudinally up to the level of the pelvis.
Place the probe into a superolateral calyx and push
through the renal parenchyma and perinephric soft
tissue. Place a second probe in an inferolateral calyx
and push through the renal parenchyma and perineph-
ric soft tissue such that the two probes are now
perpendicular to each other. Use a long, sharp knife to
bivalve the kidney starting at its convex surface along
the line of the metal probes. In this way, the kidney is
opened along the collecting system. The renal veins
should be subsequently opened in order to identify
intravenous extension of tumor. Make additional cuts
parallel or perpendicular to the first cut as necessary to
cut the neoplasm along its greatest dimensions. In
addition, cuts should be made to permit optimal
viewing of the interface between the neoplasm and the
perinephric fat because this is critical for assessing
whether the neoplasm invades the perinephric fat and
whether it approaches the margin of resection.
A partial nephrectomy may be performed for clinical
stage T1a tumors. For such specimens, ink the renal
parenchymal resection margin and breadloaf the tumor
perpendicular t o the i nked sur face. Vascular and
ureteral structures generally do not accompany partial
nephrectomy specimens. The perinephric soft tissue
will also usually not be included although sinus fat may
be and must be carefully examined if it is present (see
below). The important clinical information for partial
nephrectomies is usually only tumor type, size, and
renal parenchymal margin status, but some urologists
will submit a separate specimen consisting of overlying
perinephric fat for evaluation of tumor involvement.
D. Length of ureter, other structures included (eg, adrenal)
E. Tumor description
1. Site within the kidney: state whether the tumor is
located at the superior or inferior pole or in the mid-
portion of the kidney; if possible, determine whether
the tumor is centered on the medulla or cortex. This is
important for some tumor types (eg, collecting duct
carcinoma) in which the site of origin may support the
diagnosis.
2. Size in 3 dimensions
3. Gross characteristics: describe the color and con-
sistency of the tissue and the degree of heterogeneity.
State whether the tissue is friable and whether there
are areas of necrosis and hemorrhage. Note and
sample any areas with a homogeneous, tan bulging
surface (so-called fish flesh quality), which may
represent sarcomatoid dedifferentiation.
4. The relationship to th e perinep hric soft tissue:
determine whether the tumor protrudes into the
perinephric soft tissue. Many renal cell carcinomas
457Renal cell carcinoma guideline
are large enough to distort the renal capsule and create
a fungiform protrusion into the perinephric soft tissue.
This alone is not sufficient to qualify as perinephric
soft tissue invasion. Determine whether the interface
between tumor and soft tissue is smooth a nd
contoured with a pushing border (features which
argue against soft tissue invasion) or irregular (a
feature which suggests soft tissue invasion). The
identification of separate tumor nodules in the
perinephric fat by gross examination is diagnostic of
pT3 disease. Under the 2002 AJCC system, extension
into the renal sinus fat is also regarded as extra renal
extension [8] (pT3a). In one study that specifically
addressed extension into the sinus fat, this was a vastly
more common route of perinephric soft tissue
extension [9]. In that study, no tumor penetrated the
capsule that had not also invaded the sinus. In
addition, the earliest evidence of macroscopic venous
invasion (pT3b) is seen in the sinus fat. In fact, it has
been suggested that sinus fat involvement begins as
venous invasion, at least in clear cell carcinoma [10].
In comparison to patients with only perinephric fat
invasion by clear cell renal cell carcinoma, those with
sinus fat invasion appear to have a worse prognosis
[11]. For these reasons, it is recommended that the
sinus fat be serially sectioned at 5mm intervals, and 2
sections be submitted from the interface between the
tumor and the sinus tissues [12].Itshouldbestated
that renal oncocytomas may extend into the perineph-
ric soft tissues, but this finding should not change the
diagnosis as they still retain their excellent prognosis.
5. Renal vein invasion: macroscopic invasion of veins
in the renal sinus and beyond indicates a pT3b
tumor. Whether the venous tumor is present only as a
thrombus or invades the venous wall should also be
noted, as the latter is associated with a worse
prognosis. Although the only assessment required by
the AJCC is whether the thrombus extends to the
diaphragm, some studies have suggested that the
prognosis is adversely affected by increasing distal
extension of the tumor thrombus [13,14]. These
studies have correlated the degree of extension with
the relationship to anatomic structures such as the
hepatic veins. Although such correlations require
clinical and/or radiological information, it is recom-
mended that a measurement be given from the tip of
the thrombus to the renal sinus.
F. Additional pathology (eg, hydronephrosis, pyelone-
phritis, arteriolonephrosclerosis): it is recommended
that an additional stain be ordered up front on the
nonneoplastic renal parenchyma. This may be either a
periodic acidSchiff or a silver stain such as Jones
methenamine silver. These stains enhance the review
of the glomerular architecture and also serve as a
prompt to address the condition of the nonneoplastic
kidney. This is important because diseases such as
diabetic nephropathy and hypertensive nephrosclerosis
are common in the renal cell carcinoma age group [15].
G. Adrenal involvement: the adrenal can be reliably cleared
of involvement by renal cell carcinoma by computed
tomographic scan [16-18]. As a result, adrenalectomy
may not be performed as a component of a radical
nephrectomy. In the current TNM classification, direct
involvement of the adrenal is indicative of a pT3a tumor,
whereas if the adrenal is involved by metastatic renal
cell carcinoma, the finding requires a designation M1
and does not affect the pT classification. Several studies
have suggested that adrenal involvement even by direct
extension is an ominous finding and should warrant a
designation of pT4 [5-7].
H. Lymph nodes: involvement of regional lymph nodes is
an adverse prognostic indicator not otherwise specified
[19-21]. This appears to be true even in patients who
already have distant metastases [19,22,23]. The regional
nodes may be designated renal hilar, paracaval, aortic
(para-aortic, periaortic, lateral aortic), or retroperitoneal
[3]. At least 80% of the time lymph nodes are not
identified in a radical nephrectomy specimen [24].
Based on the last 1000 radical nephrectomy specimens at
Stanford Hospital, renal hilar l ymph nodes were
identified at gross dissection in surgical pathology in
only 5% of cases. Enlarged nodes from the renal hilus are
often separately submitted by the urologist. According to
the AJCC, if a lymph node dissection is performed, it
should ordinarily include at least 8 nodes [3].
I. T issue submitted for special investigation: in patients less
than 20 years of age, tissue should, if possible, be
submitted for cytogenetics. Although it must be acknowl-
edged that translocation carcinomas occur across the
entire age spectrum, they represent a much higher
fraction of pediatric carcinomas [25]. If a frozen section
of the tumor reveals an unusual morphology in an
adult patient, cytogenetics should be considered, and
frozen tissue should be procured. Although karyotypic
information may be helpful in the classification of
common types of renal cell carcinoma, its greatest value
is clearly in the diagnosis of the translocation carcinomas.
3. Diagnostic information
1. Laterality of tumor and type of resection.
2. Histologic type: the World Health Organization 2004
classification of renal cell carcinoma is recom-
mended [26].
a. Clear cell carcinoma
b. Multilocular cystic carcinoma
c. Papillary carcinoma
d. Chromophobe carcinoma
e. Mucinous tubular and spindle carcinoma
f. Collecting duct carcinoma
458 J. P. Higgins et al.
g. Medullary carcinoma
h. Translocation carcinomas (includes Xp11 and 6:11)
i. Tubulocystic carcinoma
j. Acquired cystic disease-associated carcinoma
k. Renal cell carcinoma, unclassified
l. Others (specify)
Outcome for renal cell carcinoma has been strongly
correlated with histologic tumor type [1,27,28],and
accurate classification of renal cell carcinomas is
essential. The different types of tumor and the
features necessary for diagnosis are very well
demonstrated in the 2004 World Health Organization
monograph [29]. The reader is referred to that
resource for most questions of classification. Only
selected topics in classification are addressed here.
Two types of papillary renal cell carcinoma have been
recognized [30-32]. Type 1 is composed of basophilic
cells with scant cytoplasm arranged in a single layer,
whereas type 2 has more abundant, often eosinophilic
cytoplasm and pseudostratified nuclei. Some groups
have found a better prognosis for type 1 tumors
[33,34]. Although the 2 types have been demon-
strated to correlate with nuclear grade [1,35],some
authors recommend that an attempt be made to
separate papillary tumors into the 2 proposed types.
A difficulty also exists with tumors that show a
papillary architecture but clear cell cytology. Some
such tumors have been found to have cytogenetic
changes typical of clear cell carcinoma [36,37]. This
would support a practice of classifying these tumors
as clear cell carcinoma; however, the problem is in
the degree of clear cell change required in a papillary
tumor for reclassification as a clear cell carcinoma.
Salama et al [37] suggested 75% of the tumor cells
should be clear. This appears to be a reasonable
threshold. Focal or mild clear cell change may be
encountered in otherwise typical papillary carcino-
mas. A diagnosis of papillary carcinoma remains
appropriate for such tumors. Other tumors with
papillary architecture and clear cells may be
unclassifiable without molecular analysis; some of
these will prove to be translocation carcinomas.
3. Histological grade: it has been acknowledged that no
ideal grading scheme exists for renal cell carcinoma but
that all agree that grading of renal cell carcinoma,
however it is d one, pr ovides us eful prog nostic
information and should be performed [38]. The Fuhr-
man scheme [2] is in general clinical use and has been
independently validated for clear cell and papillary
carcinomas [39]. Most studies fail to show that grading
of chromophobe renal cell carcinomas provides
independent prediction of prognosis beyond stage.
Low-stage chromophobe carcinomas, which are often
Fuhrman grade 3, have an almost uniformly excellent
prognosis. Until novel grading systems are developed
and validated for chromophobe carcinomas, they
should not be graded [40]. For the remaining tumors,
the overall grade should be assigned based on the
highest grade that occupies at least one 400× field [39] .
a. Small nuclei resembling those of mature lymphocytes
b. Larger nuclei with more open chromatin and small
nucleoli
c. Nucleoli readily visible on examination with 10×
objective
d. Marked nuclear pleomorphism, multiple macronucleoli
4. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation: a malignant spindle cell
pattern of growth has come to be recognized as a
nonspecific pattern of dedifferentiation that may occur in
any of the major types of renal cell carcinoma. The
amount of sarcomatoid tissue may be of prognostic
relevance and should be quantitated as a percentage
[34,41,42]. Either the unde rlying nonsarcomatous
carcinoma component or immunohistochemical evi-
dence of epithelial differentiation in a lesion morpholo-
gically consistent with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma
must be identified to permit a definitive diagnosis of
renal cell carcinoma. For cases with only a sarcomatoid
component, consideration must also be given to the
possibility of a primary or metastatic sarcoma. In
patients with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation, the already
poor prognosis is significantly further worsened by the
presence of necrosis [41]. The amount of necrosis should
also be estimated visually in increments of 5%.
5. Presence of necrosis: coagulative tumor cell necrosis
has been found to be of prognostic significance for
both clear cell and chromophobe carcinoma
[27,34,43,44] and should therefore be reported.
6. Extent of local tumor spread: this is based on the T
component of the TNM classification.
a. Primary tumor cannot be assessed (TX).
b. There is no evidence of primary tumor (T0).
c. Tumor measures 7 cm or less and is confined to the
kidney (T1).
d. Tumor measures less than 4 cm and is confined to
the kidney (T1a).
e. Tumor measures more than 4 cm but less than 7 cm
and is confined to the kidney (T1b).
f. Tumor measures more than 7 cm but is confined to
the kidney (T2).
g. Tumor extends into major veins or directly invades
adrenal gland or perinephric fat but not beyond G
fascia (T3).
h. Tumor directly invades adrenal gland or perinephric
fat but not beyond Gerota fascia (T3a)
1
.
1
Assessment for perinephric fat invasion is often not straightforward.
Most renal cell carcinomas bulge into the perinephric soft tissue in a
circumscribed manner with pushing borders as noted above in the gross
description. Histologically, one should identify carcinoma cells admixed
with adipocytes without intervening fibrous tissue before diagno sing
extrarenal spread of carcinoma. We suspect that perinephric fat invasion is
often overdiagnosed in general practice and suggests that when doubt exists,
one should adhere to the requirement of carcinoma infiltrating adipocytes.
459Renal cell carcinoma guideline
i. Tumor extends into renal vein(s) segmental (muscle-
containing) branches or vena cava or its wall below
the diaphragm (T3b).
j. Tumor extends into vena cava above the diaphragm
or the wall of the vena cava (T3c).
k. Tumor extends beyond Gerota fascia (T4).
7. Microscopic evidence of angiolymp hatic invasion
should be assessed and documented.
8. Margins of resection.
a. No tumor identified at margins
b. Tumor is present at renal parenchymal margin of
resection (partial nephrectomy).
c. Tumor present at soft tissue margin of resection
d. Intravascular tumor present at venous margin of
resection
e. Tumor is present at ureter margin
f. Others: _____________________________
9. Lymph node metastases. Not surprisingly, the presence
of lymph node metast ases a dverse ly affects the
outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma
[22,45]. The number of nodes sampled and the number
positive should be reported. Although the prognosis
may not be adversely affected by an increasing number
of positive nodes (pN1 vs pN2) [22] or the size of the
largest metastatic focus, these should be reported. The
prognosis appears to be significantly adversely
affected by extranodal extension of the metastatic
focus [24], and therefore, it is recommended that this
be assessed and reported as well.
References
[1] Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Comparisons of outcome and
prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma.
Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:612-24.
[2] Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significa nce of
morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol
1982;6:655-63.
[3] Greene FL, Page DL, Balch CM, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.
6th ed. Philadelphia: Lipincoltt-Raven Press; 2002.
[4] Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, et al. Independent validation of the
2002 American Joint Committee on cancer primary tumor classifica-
tion for renal cell carcinoma using a large, single institution cohort.
J Urol 2005;173:1889-92.
[5] Han KR, Bui MH, Pantuck AJ, et al. TNM T3a renal cell carcinoma:
adrenal gland involvement is not the same as renal fat invasion. J Urol
2003;169:899-903 [discussion -4].
[6] Siemer S, Lehmann J, Loch A, et al. Current TNM classification of
renal cell carcinoma evaluated: revising stage T3a. J Urol 2005;173:
33-7.
[7] Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, et al. Should direct
ipsilateral adrenal invasion from renal cell carcinoma be classified as
pT3a? J Urol 2005;173:918-21.
[8] Bonsib SM, Gibson D, Mhoon M, et al. Renal sinus involvement in
renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:451-8.
[9] Bonsib SM. The renal sinus is the principal invasive pathway: a
prospective study of 100 renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol
2004;28:1594-600.
[10] Bonsib SM. Renal veins and venous extension in clear cell renal cell
carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2007;20:44-53.
[11] Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, et al. Is renal sinus fat
invasion the same as perinephric fat invasion for pT3a renal cell
carcinoma? J Urol 2005;174:1218-21.
[12] Bonsib SM. T2 clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a rare entity: a study of
120 clear cell renal cell carcinomas. J Urol 2005;174:1199-202
[discussion 202].
[13] Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, et al. Cancer specific survival
for patients with pT3 renal cell carcinomacan the 2002 primary
tumor classification be improved? J Urol 2005;173:716-9.
[14] Moinzadeh A, Libertino JA. Prognostic significance of tumor
thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous
tumor thrombus extension. Is all T3b the same? J Urol 2004;171:
598-601.
[15] Bijol V, Mendez GP, Hurwitz S, et al. Evaluation of the nonneoplastic
pathology in tumor nephrectomy specimens: predicting the risk of
progressive renal failure. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:575-84.
[16] Autorino R, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, et al. Adrenal sparing surgery
in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: when is it possible? World J
Urol 2003;21:153-8.
[17] Kuczyk M, Munch T, Machtens S, et al. The need for routine
adrenalectomy during surgical treatment for renal cell cancer: the
Hannover experience. BJU Int 2002;89:517-22.
[18] Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Barbaric Z, et al. Is adrenalectomy a necessary
component of radical nephrectomy? UCLA experience with 511
radical nephrectomies. J Urol 2000;163:437-41.
[19] Dekernion JB, Ramming KP, Smith RB. The natural history of metastatic
renal cell carcinoma: a computer analysis. J Urol 1978;120:148-52.
[20] Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson W. The results of radical
nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1969;101:297-301.
[21] Thrasher JB, Paulson DF. Prognostic factors in renal cancer. Urol Clin
North Am 1993;20:247-62.
[22] Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Dorey F, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with
retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Impact on survival and benefits of
immunotherapy. Cancer 2003;97:2995-3002.
[23] Vasselli JR, Yang JC, Linehan WM, et al. Lack of retroperitoneal
lymphadenopathy predicts survival of patients with metastatic renal
cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001;166:68-72.
[24] Dimashkieh HH, Lohse CM, Blute ML, et al. Extranodal extension in
regional lymph nodes is associated with outcome in patients with renal
cell carcinoma. J Urol 2006;176:1978-82 [discussion 82-3].
[25] Argani P, Olgac S, Tickoo SK, et al. Xp11 translocation renal cell
carcinom a in adults: expanded clinical, pathologic, and genetic
spectrum. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:1149-60.
[26] Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA. World Health Organization classification
of tumours. pathology and genetics. Lyon: IARC Press; 2000.
[27] Amin MB, Tamboli P, Javidan J, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic
subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405
cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:281-91.
[28] Ljungberg B, Alamdari FI, Stenling R, et al. Prognostic significance of
the Heidelberg classification of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 1999;
36:565-9.
[29] World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and
genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs.
Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
[30] Amin MB, Corless CL, Renshaw AA, et al. Papillary (chromophil)
renal cell carcinoma: histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation
of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 62 cases. Am J
Surg Pathol 1997;21:621-35.
[31] Delahunt B, Eble JN. Papillary renal cell carcinoma: a clinicopatho-
logic and immunohistochemical study of 105 tumors. Mod Pathol
1997;10:537-44.
[32] Jiang F, Richter J, Schraml P, et al. Chromosomal imbalances in
papillary renal cell carcinoma: genetic differences between histological
subtypes. Am J Pathol 1998;153:1467-73.
[33] Delahunt B, Eble JN, McCredie MR, et al. Morphologic typing of
papillary renal cell carcinoma: comparison of growth kinetics and
patient survival in 66 cases. H
UM PATHOL 2001;32:590-5.
460 J. P. Higgins et al.
[34] Moch H, Gasser T, Amin MB, et al. Prognostic utility of the recently
recommended histologic classification and revised TNM staging
system of renal cell carcinoma: a Swiss experience with 588 tumors.
Cancer 2000;89:604-14.
[35] Yang XJ, Tan MH, Kim HL, et al. A molecular classification of
papillary renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2005;65:5628-37.
[36] Fuzesi L, Gunawan B, Bergmann F, et al. Papillary renal cell
carcinoma with clear cell cytomorphology and chromosomal loss of
3p. Histopathology 1999;35:157-61.
[37] Salama ME, Worsham MJ, DePeralta-Venturina M. Malignant
papillary renal tumors with extensive clear cell change: a molecular
analysis by microsatellite analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridiza-
tion. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:1176-81.
[38] Goldstein NS. The current state of renal cell carcinoma grading. Union
Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) and the American Joint
Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Cancer 1997;80:977-80.
[39] Lohse CM, Blute ML, Zincke H, et al. Comparison of standardized
and nonstandardized nuclear grade of renal cell carcin oma to
predict outcome among 2,042 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:
877-86.
[40] Delahunt B, Sika-Paotonu D, Bethwaite PB, et al. Fuhrman grading is
not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg
Pathol 2007;31:957-60.
[41] Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Sarcomatoid renal cell
carcinoma: an examination of underlying histologic subtype and an
analysis of associations with patient outcome. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;
28:435-41.
[42] de Peralta-Venturina M, Moch H, Amin M, et al. Sarcomatoid
differentiation in renal cell carcinoma: a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg
Pathol 2001;25:275-84.
[43] Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Maffei N, et al. Original and reviewed nuclear
grading according to the Fuhrman system: a multivariate analysis of 388
patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:68-75.
[44] Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Histologic coagulative
tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma
aggressiveness. Cancer 2005;104:511-20.
[45] Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, et al. A protocol for performing
extended lymph node dissection using primary tumor pathological
features for patients treated with radical nephrectomy for clear cell
renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;172:465-9.
Appendix A. ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORS OF ANATOMIC AND SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
Final Anatomic Diagnosis Checklist
RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
(Excluding Pediatric Renal Tumors and Tumors of the Renal Pelvis)
Accession No.: Part No. Date:
Patient Name:
ORGAN: SITE: OPERATION:
Kidney Right Radical nephrectomy
Kidney and adrenal Left Radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy
Partial nephrectomy
Other_________ Other_________ Other_________
Specimen weight:
Required
_______
Tumor Size:
Required
_______ cm × _______ cm × _______ cm
Other gross features:
Required
Describe appearance of tumor, location within the renal lobe with respect to cortex versus medulla if possible, presence of necrosis, extension
into the perinephric fat or the fat of the renal sinus, macroscopic invasion of veins
Tumor type (WHO 2004):
Required
Clear cell carcinoma
-Multilocular cystic carcinoma
Papillary carcinoma (optional: specify type 1 versus type 2)
Chromophobe cell carcinoma
Mucinous tubular and spindle carcinoma
Collecting duct carcinoma
Medullary carcinoma
Translocation carcinomas (includes Xp11 & 6:11)
2
Tubulocystic carcinoma
2
Acquired cystic disease-associated carcinoma (specify subtype)
2
Renal cell carcinoma, unclassified
Other: _________________________________________________
461Renal cell carcinoma guideline
2
Note: These tumors, although not listed in the WHO 2004 classification, are now well-recognized and will likely be included in future editions. Any subtype
of renal cell carcinoma might be seen in the setting of acquired cystic kidney disease, but papillary and clear cell types are most common and should be reported
as such. The tumor described as acquired cystic disease associated renal cell carcinoma by Tickoo et al [2]. appears to be a distinct subtype.
Histologic Grade:
Required
1 small nuclei resemble those of mature lymphocytes
2 larger nuclei with more open chromatin and small nucleoli
3 nucleoli readily visible on examination with 10x objective
4 marked nuclear pleomorphism, multiple macronucleoli
Not applicable (applies to chromophobe carcinoma)
Sarcomatoid Dedifferentiation:
Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is not identified
Areas of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation are identified
Specify percentage of total tumor:____________________________________________
Depth of Tumor Invasion:
Required
Primary tumor cannot be assessed (TX)
No evidence of primary tumor (T0)
Tumor measures 7cm or less and is confined to the kidney (T1)
Tumor measures less than 4cm and is confined to the kidney (T1a)
Tumor measures more than 4cm but less than 7cm and is confined to the kidney (T1b)
Tumor measures more than 7cm but is confined to the kidney (T2)
Tumor extends into major veins or directly invades adrenal gland or perinephric fat but not beyond Gerota fascia (T3)
Tumor directly invades adrenal gland or perinephric fat but not beyond Gerota fascia (T3a)
Tumor extends into renal vein(s) or vena cava or its segmental (muscle-containing) branches or vena cava below the diaphragm (specify
presence/absence of wall invasion) (T3b)
Tumor extends into vena cava above the diaphragm or the wall of the vena cava (T3c)
Tumor extends beyond Gerota fascia (T4)
Microscopic angiolymphatic invasion:
Required
Identified
Not Identified
Margins of Resection:
Required
No tumor identified at margins
Tumor is present at renal parenchymal margin of resection (partial nephrectomy)
Tumor present at soft tissue margin of resection
Intravascular tumor present at venous margin of resection (specific presence/absence of wall invasion)
3
Tumor is present at ureter margin
Other: _____________________________
3
NOTE: retraction of vein over fully resected tumor must be excluded.
Lymph nodes (regional):
Required
Number examined: _____________________________
Number positive: _____________________________
Comments: _____________________________
NOTE: Regional lymph nodes include renal hilar, paracaval, para-aortic, periaortic, lateral aortic, and retroperitonealNOS
Additional Findings:
Required
Acquired cystic renal disease, diabetic nephropathy, arteriolonephrosclerosis, pyelonephritis, papillary adenoma, tubulopapillary
hyperplasia, cysts
Specify: ___________________________________________________________
462 J. P. Higgins et al.
Adrenal Gland:
Optional
No histopathologic changes are present
Tumor directly invades the adrenal gland (T3a)
Adrenal involved by metastasis (M1)
Nodular/diffuse cortical hyperplasia is present
Cortical adenoma is present (specify size)
Other:__________________________________________________________________
Ancillary studies:
Optional
pTN Stage:
Required
A. Primary Tumor
pTX Primary tumor cannot be assessed
pT0 No evidence of primary tumor
pT1a Tumor 4cm or less, confined to kidney
pT1b Tumor 7cm or less, confined to kidney
pT2 Tumor more than 7cm, confined to kidney
pT3a Tumor directly invades adrenal gland or perinephric tissues but not beyond Gerota fascia
pT3b Tumor grossly extends into renal vein(s) or segmental (muscle-containing) branches or vena cava or below diaphragm
pT3c Tumor grossly extends into vena cava above diaphragm or invades the wall of the vena cava
pT4a Tumor invades other organs or structures
pT4b Tumor perforates the visceral peritoneum
B. Regional Lymph Nodes
pNX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
pN0 No regional lymph node metastasis
pN1 Metastasis in a single regional lymph nodes
pN2 Metastasis in more than one regional lymph nodes
C. Distant Metastasis
pMX Cannot be assessed
pM0 No distant metastasis
pM1 Distant metastasis
References:
[1] AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Lippincott-Raven Press, 6
th
edition, 2002 (pg. 323-325).
[2] Tickoo SK, dePeralta-Venturina MN, Harik LR, et al. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:141-53.
463Renal cell carcinoma guideline
    • "At this respect, Nassar et al. [16] documented ITH in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry and highlighted the negative clinical impact of potential false negative immunohistochemical results obtained after a study performed in small, probably non representative , core biopsies. In renal cancer this is an important issue since renal tumors are frequently big in size, and current protocols of tumor sampling recommend the selection for microscopic study of one block per centimeter of tumor plus an additional sample of every suspicious area on naked eye171819. Following these guidelines, more than 90 % of the neoplastic tissue in many renal tumors may escape the pathologist's routine analysis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background Intratumor heterogeneity may be responsible of the unpredictable aggressive clinical behavior that some clear cell renal cell carcinomas display. This clinical uncertainty may be caused by insufficient sampling, leaving out of histological analysis foci of high grade tumor areas. Although molecular approaches are providing important information on renal intratumor heterogeneity, a focus on this topic from the practicing pathologist’ perspective is still pending. Methods Four distant tumor areas of 40 organ-confined clear cell renal cell carcinomas were selected for histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluation. Tumor size, cell type (clear/granular), Fuhrman’s grade, Staging, as well as immunostaining with Snail, ZEB1, Twist, Vimentin, E-cadherin, β-catenin, PTEN, p-Akt, p110α, and SETD2, were analyzed for intratumor heterogeneity using a classification and regression tree algorithm. Results Cell type and Fuhrman’s grade were heterogeneous in 12.5 and 60 % of the tumors, respectively. If cell type was homogeneous (clear cell) then the tumors were low-grade in 88.57 % of cases. Immunostaining heterogeneity was significant in the series and oscillated between 15 % for p110α and 80 % for Snail. When Snail immunostaining was homogeneous the tumor was histologically homogeneous in 100 % of cases. If Snail was heterogeneous, the tumor was heterogeneous in 75 % of the cases. Average tumor diameter was 4.3 cm. Tumors larger than 3.7 cm were heterogeneous for Vimentin immunostaining in 72.5 % of cases. Tumors displaying negative immunostaining for both ZEB1 and Twist were low grade in 100 % of the cases. Conclusions Intratumor heterogeneity is a common event in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, which can be monitored by immunohistochemistry in routine practice. Snail seems to be particularly useful in the identification of intratumor heterogeneity. The suitability of current sampling protocols in renal cancer is discussed.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2016
  • Article · Nov 2009
  • Conference Paper · Nov 2009
Show more