Xp11 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma Research Articles

Activity of third line (3L) therapy in patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mnccRCC).

650 Background: Medical treatment of patients (pts) with mnccRCC remains uncertain, with no established standard treatment. In addition, no data on late line of treatment have been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcome for patients receiving 3L therapy in mnccRCC Methods: Retrospective data analysis was performed using the IGRECC (Institut Gustave Roussy REnal Cell Carcinoma) database to describe clinical features and outcomes of 3L therapy in mnccRCC pts. Kaplan Meier estimation was applied for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Results: Out of all pts with mRCC treated with a targeted therapy from 2005 to 2016, 202/1027 (20%) had mnccRCC. 117 (58%) received 2L therapy and 62 (30%) received 3L therapy. These pts had papillary RCC (61%), unclassified RCC (19), Xp11translocation renal cell carcinoma (13%) and chromophobe tumors (7%). The most common 3L therapies were: everolimus (29%), sorafenib (18%), other drugs in clinical trials (16%), sunitinib (11%), axitinib (10%) and cabozantinib (10%). Baseline characteristics are displayed in Table 1. With a median follow-up of 47 months (mo) (min: 0.7 max: 74), the median PFS is 5 mo (95%CI 2.7 - 5.8) and the median OS is 11.7 mo (95%CI 10 - 20). Pts with a favourable, intermediate and poor risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Database Consortium (IMDC) score had a median OS of 21 mo (95%CI 8 – NR), 11.9 mo (95%CI 10 – 25), and 6.2 mo (95%CI 2 – 8), respectively (p < 0.0001). One patient (2%) obtained a partial response and 26 pts (51%) achieved a stable disease, among 51 evaluable pts Conclusions: This is the first report investigating the impact of 3L systemic therapy in a rare population. Selected pts could benefit of more lines of therapy and IMDC score appears to stratify well prognostic groups, especially poor risk patients. [Table: see text]

Xp11 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas (RCCs) With RBM10-TFE3 Gene Fusion Demonstrating Melanotic Features and Overlapping Morphology With t(6;11) RCC: Interest and Diagnostic Pitfall in Detecting a Paracentric Inversion of TFE3.

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are characterized by several different translocations involving the TFE3 gene. Tumors with different specific gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic manifestations. Only 3 RBM10-TFE3 RCCs have been reported to date. Here, we added 4 cases of this rare type of tumors with clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, molecular, and ultrastructural analyses. Most tumors had similar patterns with mixed architectures as follows: acinar, tubular and papillary patterns of epithelioid cells combined with sheets of small cells with "pseudorosette-like" architectures, mimicking the typical morphology of t(6;11) RCC. Cytoplasmic vacuolization, nuclear groove, and psammoma bodies were observed in most cases. Immunohistochemically, all 4 cases demonstrated moderate to strong immunoreactivity for TFE3, Cathepsin K, CD10, Ksp-cadherin, E-cadherin, P504S, RCC marker, PAX8 and vimentin, whereas negativity for TFEB, HMB45, and CK7. CKpan and Melan-A were at least focally expressed. The antibody to Ki-67 showed labeling of 3% to 8% (mean, 5%) of tumor cell nuclei. ;Of interest, several immunostainings demonstrated expression discrepancy in different histology patterns. RBM10-TFE3 fusion transcripts were identified in all cases by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. By fluorescence in situ hybridization, all 4 cases showed unusual split signals with a distance <1 signal diameter (co-localized or subtle split signals) and usually had false-negative results. We also observed ultrastructures, including melanin pigment, nuclear groove, numerous glycogens, mitochondrion with areas of high electron density material, basement membrane material, and cell junctions with poor development. All 4 patients were alive with no evidence of recurrent disease. Our report adds to the known data regarding RBM10-TFE3 RCC.

RBM10-TFE3 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Potential Diagnostic Pitfall Due to Cryptic Intrachromosomal Xp11.2 Inversion Resulting in False-negative TFE3 FISH.

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are defined by chromosome translocations involving the Xp11 breakpoint which results in one of a variety of TFE3 gene fusions. TFE3 break-apart florescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays are generally preferred to TFE3 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a means of confirming the diagnosis in archival material, as FISH is less sensitive to the variable fixation which can result in false positive or false negative IHC. Prompted by a case report in the cytogenetics literature, we identify 3 cases of Xp11 translocation RCC characterized by a subtle chromosomal inversion involving the short arm of the X chromosome, resulting in an RBM10-TFE3 gene fusion. TFE3 rearrangement was not detected by conventional TFE3 break-apart FISH, but was suggested by strong diffuse TFE3 immunoreactivity in a clean background. We then developed novel fosmid probes to detect the RBM10-TFE3 gene fusion in archival material. These cases validate RBM10-TFE3 as a recurrent gene fusion in Xp11 translocation RCC, illustrate a source of false-negative TFE3 break-apart FISH, and highlight the complementary role of TFE3 IHC and TFE3 FISH.

Combination of immunohistochemistry, FISH and RT-PCR shows high incidence of Xp11 translocation RCC: comparison of three different diagnostic methods.

We evaluated the frequency of translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and how well the TFE3 immunoreactivity is concordant with TFE3 gene translocation status proved by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay and RT-PCR. TFE3 and Cathepsin K expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 185 RCC cases, and 48 cases either of more than weak expression of TFE3 or of positivity for Cathepsin K were done for FISH analysis and RT-PCR. All the RT-PCR positive cases were confirmed by cloning and sequencing. Of the 14 cases with strong nuclear TFE3 expression, 12 showed a break-apart signal by FISH. ASPL- and PRCC-TFE3 translocations were detected in 13 and one case, respectively, by RT-PCR. Of 21 cases with weak TFE3 expression, five were translocation-positive by FISH. ASPL-, PRCC-, and PSF-TFE3 translocations were detected by RT-PCR (n=3, 3, and 1, respectively). All 13 TFE3-negative/cathepsin K-positive cases were negative by FISH and two each harbored ASPL- and PRCC-TFE3 translocations that were detected by RT-PCR. A high rate of TFE3 immunoreactivity (8.6%) was confirmed by RT-PCR (13.5%) and FISH (9.7%). Higher translocation rate of RT-PCR means RT-PCR detected translocation in TFE3 weak expression group and only cathepsin K positive group more specifically than FISH. Thus, RT-PCR would complement FISH analysis for detecting translocation RCC with fusion partners.

SFPQ/PSF-TFE3 renal cell carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study emphasizing extended morphology and reviewing the differences between SFPQ-TFE3 RCC and the corresponding mesenchymal neoplasm despite an identical gene fusion

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with SFPQ/PSF-TFE3 gene fusion is a rare epithelial tumor. Of note, the appearance of the gene fusion does not necessarily mean that it is renal cell carcinoma. The corresponding mesenchymal neoplasms, including Xp11 neoplasm with melanocytic differentiation, TFE3 rearrangement-associated perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) and melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer, can also harbor the identical gene fusion. However, the differences between Xp11 translocation RCC and the corresponding mesenchymal neoplasm have only recently been described. Herein, we examined 5 additional cases of SFPQ-TFE3 RCCs using clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular analyses. One tumor had the typical morphologic features of SFPQ-TFE3 RCC, whereas other 3 cases demonstrated the unusual morphologic features associated with pseudorosettes formation or clusters of smaller cells, mimicking TFEB RCC. The remaining one showed branching tubules and papillary structure composed of clear and eosinophilic tumor cells. Immunohistochemically, all 5 cases demonstrated moderate (2+) or strong (3+) positive staining for TFE3, PAX-8 and CD10, whereas no cases demonstrated TFEB, Cathepsin K, CA-IX, CK7, Melan-A, or HMB-45 expression. Genetically, the fusion transcripts were identified in 3 cases by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). On the basis of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis, all the cases were detected with SFPQ-TFE3 gene fusion. Clinical follow-up data were available for all the patients, and no one developed tumor recurrence, progression, or metastasis. We also review the differences between SFPQ-TFE3 RCC and the corresponding mesenchymal neoplasm despite the identical gene fusion. The presence of pseudorosettes also expands the known histological features of SFPQ-TFE3 RCC.

Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma with NONO-TFE3 gene fusion: morphology, prognosis, and potential pitfall in detecting TFE3 gene rearrangement

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas are characterized by several different translocations involving the TFE3 gene. Tumors with different specific gene fusions may have different clinicopathological manifestations. Fewer than 10 renal cell carcinoma cases with NONO-TFE3 have been described. Here we examined eight additional cases of this rare tumor using clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular analyses. The male-to-female ratio of our study cohort was 1:1, and the median age was 30 years. The most distinctive feature of the tumors was that they exhibited glandular/tubular or papillary architecture that was lined with small-to-medium cuboidal to high columnar cells with indistinct cell borders and an abundantly clear or flocculent eosinophilic cytoplasm. The nuclei were oriented toward the luminal surface and were round and uniform in shape, which resulted in the appearance of secretory endometrioid subnuclear vacuolization. The distinct glandular/tubular or papillary architecture was often accompanied by sheets of epithelial cells that presented a biphasic pattern. Immunohistochemically, all eight cases demonstrated moderate (2+) or strong (3+) positive staining for TFE3, CD10, RCC marker, and PAX-8. None of the tumors were immunoreactive for CK7, Cathepsin K, Melan-A, HMB45, Ksp-cadherin, Vimentin, CA9, 34βE12 or CD117. NONO-TFE3 fusion transcripts were identified in six cases by RT-PCR. All eight cases showed equivocal split signals with a distance of nearly 2 signal diameters and sometimes had false-negative results. Furthermore, we developed a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay to serve as an adjunct diagnostic tool for the detection of the NONO-TFE3 fusion gene and used this method to detect the fusion gene in all eight cases. Long-term follow-up (range, 10–102 months) was available for 7 patients. All 7 patients were alive with no evidence of recurrent disease or disease progression after their initial resection. This report adds to the known data regarding NONO-TFE3 renal cell carcinoma.

Xp11 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma and the Mesenchymal Counterparts: An Evolving Concept with Novel Insights on Clinicopathologic Features, Prognosis, Treatment, and Classification.

The TFE3 gene is one of four members of the micropathalima-associated transcription factor family, along with TFEB, TFEC, and MiTF, located on chromosome Xp11.2. The site is notable for its involvement in translocation in Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and the mesenchymal counterparts, including Xp11 neoplasm with melanocytic differentiation/TFE3 rearrangement-associated perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa)/ melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer/melanotic Xp11 neoplasm, and alveolar soft-part sarcoma. By morphologic, immunohistochemical, genetic, and prognostic similarities, alveolar soft-part sarcoma with the ASPSCR1-TFE3 gene fusion has a closer relationship with Xp11 neoplasm with melanocytic differentiation/TFE3 rearrangement-associated PEComa/melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer/melanotic Xp11 neoplasm. These Xp11 translocation mesenchymal neoplasms may represent a distinct entity, which overlaps with Xp11 translocation RCC and broadens the spectrum of Xp11 translocation-associated neoplasms. The impact of individual fusion variants on specific clinicopathologic features of Xp11 translocation RCC has only recently been described. This review provides insight into the clinicopathologic features, prognosis, treatment, and classification of Xp11 translocation RCC and its mesenchymal counterparts, emphasizing the impact of individual fusion variants on specific clinicopathologic features of Xp11 translocation RCC and the relationships among these Xp11 translocation-associated neoplasms.

TFE3-Fusion Variant Analysis Defines Specific Clinicopathologic Associations Among Xp11 Translocation Cancers.

Xp11 translocation cancers include Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC), Xp11 translocation perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), and melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer. In Xp11 translocation cancers, oncogenic activation of TFE3 is driven by the fusion of TFE3 with a number of different gene partners; however, the impact of individual fusion variant on specific clinicopathologic features of Xp11 translocation cancers has not been well defined. In this study, we analyze 60 Xp11 translocation cancers by fluorescence in situ hybridization using custom bacterial artificial chromosome probes to establish their TFE3 fusion gene partner. In 5 cases RNA sequencing was also used to further characterize the fusion transcripts. The 60 Xp11 translocation cancers included 47 Xp11 translocation RCC, 8 Xp11 translocation PEComas, and 5 melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancers. A fusion partner was identified in 53/60 (88%) cases, including 18 SFPQ (PSF), 16 PRCC, 12 ASPSCR1 (ASPL), 6 NONO, and 1 DVL2. We provide the first morphologic description of the NONO-TFE3 RCC, which frequently demonstrates subnuclear vacuoles leading to distinctive suprabasal nuclear palisading. Similar subnuclear vacuolization was also characteristic of SFPQ-TFE3 RCC, creating overlapping features with clear cell papillary RCC. We also describe the first RCC with a DVL2-TFE3 gene fusion, in addition to an extrarenal pigmented PEComa with a NONO-TFE3 gene fusion. Furthermore, among neoplasms with the SFPQ-TFE3, NONO-TFE3, DVL2-TFE3, and ASPL-TFE3 gene fusions, the RCCs are almost always PAX8 positive, cathepsin K negative by immunohistochemistry, whereas the mesenchymal counterparts (Xp11 translocation PEComas, melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancers, and alveolar soft part sarcoma) are PAX8 negative, cathepsin K positive. These findings support the concept that despite an identical gene fusion, the RCCs are distinct from the corresponding mesenchymal neoplasms, perhaps due to the cellular context in which the translocation occurs. We corroborate prior data showing that the PRCC-TFE3 RCCs are the only known Xp11 translocation RCC molecular subtype that are consistently cathepsin K positive. In summary, our data expand further the clinicopathologic features of cancers with specific TFE3 gene fusions and should allow for more meaningful clinicopathologic associations to be drawn.

Clinicopathological characteristics of Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma in adolescents and adults: Diagnosis using immunostaining of transcription factor E3 and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis.

To determine the rate and clinicopathological features of Xp11.2 translocation carcinoma using immunostaining of transcription factor E3 and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. We evaluated 638 patients with renal cell carcinoma treated at Sapporo Medical University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan, from 1990 to 2009 by reviewing all hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections and carrying out immunostaining of transcription factor E3 for all cases. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis was carried out for patients with positive immunostaining or with findings suspicious for Xp11.2 translocation carcinoma on hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections. In this analysis, we set a cut-off level for split signals of at least 10% of nuclei. Of the 631 patients, 20 (3.2%) were positive for immunostaining. Finally, five patients were diagnosed with Xp11.2 translocation carcinoma (0.8%). Four of these patients were female and aged less than 50 years, and three cases were diagnosed as stage IV with multiple regional lymph nodal or visceral metastases. The positive predictive value of immunostaining was 25%. Patients with Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma tend to be younger, more frequently female and diagnosed at a more advanced stage. Immunostaining followed by fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis is an accurate and cost-effective approach for diagnosis of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma.

Validation and utilization of a TFE3 break-apart FISH assay for Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma and alveolar soft part sarcoma.

BackgroundXp11.2 or TFE3 translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCC) and alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) are characterized by chromosome translocations involving the Xp11.2 breakpoint resulting in transcription factor TFE3 gene fusions. The most common translocations documented in TFE3 RCCs are t(X;1) (p11.2;q21) and t(X;17) (p11.2;q25) which leads to fusion of TFE3 gene on Xp11.2 with PRCC or ASPL respectively. TFE3 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been inconsistent over time due to background staining problems in part related to fixation issues. Karyotyping to detect TFE3 gene rearrangement requires typically unavailable fresh tissue. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is generally very challenging due to degradation of RNA in archival material. The study objective was to develop and validate a TFE3 break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay to confirm Xp11 translocation RCCs and ASPS.MethodsRepresentative sections of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were selected in 40 possible cases. Approximately 60 tumor cells were analyzed in the targeted region. The validation of TFE3 FISH was done with 11 negative and two positive cases. Cut off for a positive result was validated as >7.15 % positive nuclei with any pattern of break-apart signals. FISH evaluation was done blinded of the immunohistochemical or karyotype data.ResultsThree out of forty cases were positive for the TFE3 break-apart signals by FISH. The negative cases were reported as clear cell RCC with papillary features (10), clear cell RCC with sarcomatoid areas (2), Papillary RCC with clear cell areas (9), Chromophobe RCC (2), RCC, unclassified type (3) and renal medullary carcinoma (1). 3 of the negative cases were consultation cases for renal tumor with unknown histology. Seven negative cases were soft tissue tumor suspicious for ASPS.ConclusionOur study validates the utility of TFE3 break-apart FISH on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections for diagnosis and confirmation of Xp11.2 translocation RCCs and ASPS.

Identification of a novel PARP14-TFE3 gene fusion from 10-year-old FFPE tissue by RNA-seq.

Xp11 (TFE3) translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is officially recognized as a distinct subtype of RCC in the 2004 WHO classification. This neoplasm is characterized by several chromosomal translocations between the TFE3-involving Xp11.2 breakpoint and various fusion partners. To date, five partner genes have been identified, that is, PRCC in 1q21, PSF in 1q34, ASPL in 17q25, CLTC in 17q23, and NONO in Xq12; and three additional translocations have been reported with no partner gene being defined: t(X;3)(p11;q23), t(X;10)(p11;q23), and t(X;19)(p11;q13). Here, we report the identification of a novel TFE3 fusion partner, PARP14 in chromosome band3q21. We used RNA-seq on a 10-year-old FFPE (formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded) tissue sample, which carried t(X;3)(p11;q23) as detected in the original cytogenetic study. The fusion transcript connected the 5'-end of the first two exons of PARP14 to the 3'-end of five exons of TFE3, which was verified by reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and Sanger sequencing. Similar to other TFE3 fusions previously reported, the predicted PARP14-TFE3 product retains the nuclear localization and DNA-binding domains of TFE3. This finding expands the list of TFE3 translocation partner genes and re-emphasizes the essential oncogenic role of TFE3 fusion proteins in this tumor. Our result also clearly demonstrated the feasibility of identifying chromosomal translocation by RNA-seq in clinical FFPE, which are easily accessible and associated with valuable clinical information. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Immunohistochemical Panel for Differentiating Renal Cell Carcinoma with Clear and Papillary Features.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in which clear cells with papillary architecture are present is a difficult diagnostic challenge. The most common type, clear cell RCC, only rarely has papillary architecture. The second most common one, papillary RCC, only rarely contains clear cells. However, two recently described less-common types, clear cell papillary and Xp11 translocation RCC characteristically feature both papillary architecture and cells with clear cytoplasm. Accurate diagnosis has both prognostic and therapeutic implications. This study aims to highlight the helpful cytomorphologic and immunohistochemical features of each of these entities to enable reproducible classification. Sixty RCC cases with clear cells and papillary architecture were selected and classified according to The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia and graded according to The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma then stained for CK7, carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX), α-methylacyl-CoA-racemase (AMACR) and TFE-3. The characteristic immunoprofile of Clear RCC is CK7-, AMACR-, CA IX+ and TFE3-, papillary RCC is CK7+, AMACR+, CAIX- and TFE3-, while for clear cell papillary RCC it is CK7+, AMACR-, CAIX+ and TFE3- and lastly Xp11translocation RCC is CK7-, AMACR+, CAIX- and TFE3+. Immunohistochemical staining for CA IX, CK7, AMACR and TFE3 comprises a concise panel for distinguishing RCC with papillary and clear pattern.

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma.

The MiT subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFC, and MiTF. Gene fusions involving two of these transcription factors have been identified in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The Xp11 translocation RCCs were first officially recognized in the 2004 WHO renal tumor classification, and harbor gene fusions involving TFE3. The t(6;11) RCCs harbor a specific Alpha-TFEB gene fusion and were first officially recognized in the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia. These two subtypes of translocation RCC have many similarities. Both were initially described in and disproportionately involve young patients, though adult translocation RCC may overall outnumber pediatric cases. Both often have unusual and distinctive morphologies; the Xp11 translocation RCCs frequently have clear cells with papillary architecture and abundant psammomatous bodies, while the t(6;11) RCCs frequently have a biphasic appearance with both large and small epithelioid cells and nodules of basement membrane material. However, the morphology of these two neoplasms can overlap, with one mimicking the other. Both of these RCCs underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical markers like cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) relative to most other RCCs. Unlike other RCCs, both frequently express the cysteine protease cathepsin k and often express melanocytic markers like HMB45 and Melan A. Finally, TFE3 and TFEB have overlapping functional activity as these two transcription factors frequently heterodimerize and bind to the same targets. Therefore, on the basis of clinical, morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic similarities, the 2013 ISUP Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia grouped these two neoplasms together under the heading of "MiT family translocation RCC." This review summarizes our current knowledge of these recently described RCCs.

Clinicopathological features of Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma.

PurposeXp11.2 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.Materials and MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsXp11 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.

Clinicopathologic features of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma

To study the clinicopathological features, differential diagnosis and prognosis of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC). The histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features were studied in 11 cases and follow-up data were also analyzed. There were a total of 3 females and 8 males. The age of patients were ranged from 33 to 72 years(mean age 52.5 years). The diameters of tumors varied from 1cm to 4 cm. Histologically, papillary and cystic architecture were present at least focally in all tumors. The papillae were covered by small to medium-sized cuboidal cells with abundant clear cytoplasm and often showed extensive secondary branching, which were often folded and densely packed, resulting in a solid appearance. The nuclei were round and uniform in shape; nucleoli were not prominent (Fuhrman grade 1 or 2). Neither mitotic figures nor necrosis was present. All 11 cases exhibited moderate to strong positivity for CK7, CA9, vimentin, and HIF-1α, coupled with negative reactions for CD10, P504S, and TFE3. Ksp-cadherin was positively expressed in 8 cases.VHL gene mutations were not found in all 11 cases. Losses of chromosomes 3 (monoploid chromosome 3) was detected in 3 cases. CCPRCC is uncommon and seemed to be an indolent tumor. The differential diagnosis should be included tumors, which harbor clear cell and papillary structure including clear cell renal cell carcinoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma, Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma, and CCPRCC. Immunohistochemical and molecular analysis may be help for its diagnosis.

Clinical heterogeneity of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma: impact of fusion subtype, age, and stage

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas harbor chromosome translocations involving the Xp11 breakpoint, resulting in gene fusions involving the TFE3 gene. The most common subtypes are the ASPSCR1-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas resulting from t(X;17)(p11;q25) translocation, and the PRCC-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas, resulting from t(X;1)(p11;q21) translocation. A formal clinical comparison of these two subtypes of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas has not been performed. We report one new genetically confirmed Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma of each type. We also reviewed the literature for all published cases of ASPSCR1-TFE3 and PRCC-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas and contacted all corresponding authors to obtain or update the published follow-up information. Study of two new, unpublished cases, and review of the literature revealed that 8/8 patients who presented with distant metastasis had ASPSCR1-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas, and all but one of these patients either died of disease or had progressive disease. Regional lymph nodes were involved by metastasis in 24 of the 32 ASPSCR1-TFE3 cases in which nodes were resected, compared with 5 of 14 PRCC-TFE3 cases (P=0.02).; however, 11 of 13 evaluable patients with ASPSCR1-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas who presented with N1M0 disease remained disease free. Two PRCC-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas recurred late (at 20 and 30 years, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only older age or advanced stage at presentation (not fusion subtype) predicted death. In conclusion, ASPSCR1-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas are more likely to present at advanced stage (particularly node-positive disease) than are PRCC-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas. Although systemic metastases portend a grim prognosis, regional lymph node involvement does not, at least in short-term follow-up. The tendency for PRCC-TFE3 renal cell carcinomas to recur late warrants long-term follow-up.

T(6;11) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) harboring the t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation were first described in 2001 and recently recognized by the 2013 International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Although these RCCs are known to label for melanocytic markers HMB45 and Melan A and the cysteine protease cathepsin K by immunohistochemistry (IHC), a comprehensive IHC profile has not been reported. We report 10 new t(6;11) RCCs, all confirmed by break-apart TFEB fluorescence in situ hybridization. A tissue microarray containing 6 of these cases and 7 other previously reported t(6;11) RCCs was constructed and immunolabeled for 21 different antigens. Additional whole sections of t(6;11) RCC were labeled with selected IHC markers. t(6;11) RCC labeled diffusely and consistently for cathepsin K and Melan A (13 of 13 cases) and almost always at least focally for HMB45 (12 of 13 cases). They labeled frequently for PAX8 (14 of 23 cases), CD117 (10 of 14 cases), and vimentin (9 of 13 cases). A majority of cases labeled at least focally for cytokeratin Cam5.2 (8 of 13 cases) and CD10 and RCC marker antigen (10 of 14 cases each). In contrast to a prior study's findings, only a minority of cases labeled for Ksp-cadherin (3 of 19 cases). The median H score (product of intensity score and percentage labeling) for phosphorylated S6, a marker of mTOR pathway activation, was 101, which is high relative to most other RCC subtypes. In summary, IHC labeling for PAX8, Cam5.2, CD10, and RCC marker antigen supports classification of the t(6;11) RCC as carcinomas despite frequent negativity for broad-spectrum cytokeratins and EMA. Labeling for PAX8 distinguishes the t(6;11) RCC from epithelioid angiomyolipoma, which otherwise shares a similar immunoprofile. CD117 labeling is more frequent in the t(6;11) RCC compared with the related Xp11 translocation RCC. Increased pS6 expression suggests a possible molecular target for the uncommon t(6;11) RCCs that metastasize.

IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL PANEL FOR DIFFERENTIATING RENAL CELL CARCINOMA WITH CLEAR AND PAPILLARY FEATURES.

Aim: renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in which clear cells with papillary architecture are present is a difficult diagnostic challenge. The most common type, clear cell RCC, only rarely has papillary architecture. The second most common one, papillary RCC, only rarely contains clear cells. However, two recently described less-common types, clear cell papillary and Xp11 translocation RCC characteristically feature both papillary architecture and cells with clear cytoplasm. Accurate diagnosis has both prognostic and therapeutic implications. This study aims to highlight the helpful cytomorphologic and immunohistochemical features of each of these entities to enable reproducible classification. Materials and methods: sixty RCC cases with clear cells and papillary architecture were selected and classified according to The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia and graded according to The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma then stained for CK7, carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX), α-methylacyl-CoA-racemase (AMACR) and TFE-3. Results: the characteristic immunoprofile of Clear RCC is CK7-, AMACR-, CA IX+ and TFE3-, papillary RCC is CK7+, AMACR+, CAIX- and TFE3-, while for clear cell papillary RCC it is CK7+, AMACR-, CAIX+ and TFE3- and lastly Xp11translocation RCC is CK7-, AMACR+, CAIX- and TFE3+. Conclusions: immunohistochemical staining for CA IX, CK7, AMACR and TFE3 comprises a concise panel for distinguishing RCC with papillary and clear pattern.

Utilization of a TFE3 Break-apart FISH Assay in a Renal Tumor Consultation Service

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are characterized by chromosome translocations involving the Xp11.2 breakpoint, resulting in gene fusions involving the TFE3 transcription factor. In archival material, the diagnosis can often be confirmed by TFE3 immunohistochemistry (IHC), but variable fixation (especially prevalent in consultation material) can lead to equivocal results. A TFE3 break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay has been developed to detect TFE3 gene rearrangements; however, the utility of this assay in a renal tumor consultation practice has not been examined. We reviewed 95 consecutive renal tumor consultation cases submitted to rule in or rule out Xp11 translocation RCC. Thirty-one cases were positive for TFE3 rearrangements by FISH. Patients ranged from 6 to 67 years of age (mean=30 y; median=28 y). Novel or distinctive morphologic features of these cases included extensive cystic change simulating multilocular cystic RCC (3 cases), sarcomatoid transformation (3 cases), oncocytic areas mimicking oncocytoma (1 case), trabecular architecture mimicking a carcinoid tumor (1 case), colonization of renal pelvic urothelium mimicking urothelial carcinoma in situ (1), and focal desmin and diffuse racemase immunoreactivity (1 case each). Twenty-six of the 31 TFE3 FISH-positive RCCs were unequivocally positive for TFE3 by IHC, but 4 were equivocal, and 1 was negative. Of the 64 cases that were negative by TFE3 FISH, 50 were negative by TFE3 IHC, and 14 were equivocal. Thirty-two of the 64 TFE3 FISH-negative cases could be classified into other accepted RCC subtypes: 23 as clear cell RCC, 5 as papillary RCC, 3 as clear cell papillary RCC, and 1 as chromophobe RCC. The other 32 cases remained unclassified, including 3 cathepsin K-positive RCC that closely resembled Xp11 translocation RCC. In conclusion, TFE3 FISH is highly useful in renal tumor consultation material, often resolving cases with equivocal TFE3 IHC results. Given the difficulty of optimizing TFE3 IHC, TFE3 FISH is for most laboratories the optimal test for establishing the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation RCC.

Update on selected renal cell tumors with clear cell features. With emphasis on multilocular cystic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is the most common malignant tumor of renal epithelial origin and, with the exception of some rare tumors, the most deadly. The exception is represented by the multilocular cystic CCRCC, whose prognosis is excellent with survival rates of 100% when diagnosis is made according to the WHO definition. For this reason a proposal has been made to rename this tumor as multilocular cystic renal cell neoplasms of low malignant potential. Another exemption could be the clear cell (tubulo) papillary renal cell carcinoma/clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC), a tumor with tubulopapillary architecture and clear cytoplasm. Published data indicates that these are neoplasms with indolent clinical behavior. No cases with metastasis have been reported. Neoplasms meeting criteria for CCPRCC will subsequently be reclassified as of "low malignant potential" rather than carcinoma. The stroma of CCPRCC not infrequently demonstrates smooth muscle metaplasia. It should be remembered, however, that smooth muscle stromal metaplasia and proliferation are not entirely specific to this entity. Hence, it is suggested that smooth muscle metaplasia in the kidney may be a nonspecific common reaction to a variety of stimuli. Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas are a group of neoplasms distinguished by chromosomal translocations with breakpoints involving the TFE3 transcription factor gene, which maps to the Xp11.2 locus. The most distinctive histologic pattern of the Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma is that of a neoplasm with both clear cells and papillary architecture, and abundant psammoma bodies. TFE3 immunohistochemical staining is reported to be sensitive and specific for a diagnosis of translocation-associated carcinoma as long as the labeling is strong, diffuse, and nuclear. This immunostaining is particularly useful if the differential diagnosis includes CCRCC and CCPRCC. In conclusion, recognition of CCRCC and differentiation from other renal cell neoplasms with clear cytoplasm is important not only for prognostication but also for treatment-related reasons.