773: C-KIT and CK7 Immunohistochemistry in the Differential Diagnosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma, A Study of 111 Cases

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
Jonathan J. Ord ◽  
David Cranston ◽  
Adrian L. Harris ◽  
Leticia Campo ◽  
Helen Turley ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajen Goyal ◽  
Elizabeth Gersbach ◽  
Ximing J. Yang ◽  
Stephen M. Rohan

Context.—The World Health Organization classification of renal tumors synthesizes morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings to define more than 40 tumor types. Of these, clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor in adults and—with the exception of some rare tumors—the most deadly. The diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma on morphologic grounds alone is generally straightforward, but challenging cases are not infrequent. A misdiagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma has clinical consequences, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies. Objective.—To highlight morphologic mimics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and provide strategies to help differentiate clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other renal tumors and lesions. The role of the pathologist in guiding treatment for renal malignancies will be emphasized to stress the importance of proper tumor classification in patient management. Data Sources.—Published literature and personal experience. Conclusions.—In challenging cases, submission of additional tissue is often an inexpensive and effective way to facilitate a correct diagnosis. If immunohistochemical stains are to be used, it is best to use a panel of markers, as no one marker is specific for a given renal tumor subtype. Selection of limited markers, based on a specific differential diagnosis, can be as useful as a large panel in reaching a definitive diagnosis. For renal tumors, both the presence and absence of immunoreactivity and the pattern of labeling (membranous, cytoplasmic, diffuse, focal) are important when interpreting the results of immunohistochemical stains.


2012 ◽  
Vol 136 (8) ◽  
pp. 907-910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Young ◽  
Lakshmi P. Kunju

We report the case of a high-grade carcinoma involving the kidney in a young male with renal vein thrombosis and review the differential diagnosis and immunohistochemical workup. High-grade neoplasms involving the renal sinus include collecting duct carcinomas (CDCs), renal medullary carcinomas (RMCs), invasive high-grade urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the upper urinary tract, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma. Distinguishing UC from CDC and RMC is problematic in small biopsy samples. The diagnosis of CDC (a rare, aggressive subtype of renal cell carcinoma) is challenging and requires the exclusion of UC. Renal medullary carcinoma is characterized by an appropriate clinical setting and consistent loss of nuclear expression of integrase interactor 1 (INI-1). A panel consisting of p63, paired box gene 8 (PAX8), and INI-1 is most optimal in distinguishing UC from CDC and RMC. A subset of urothelial carcinoma of upper urinary tract may be positive with PAX8.


Author(s):  
Nicholas Baniak ◽  
Harrison Tsai ◽  
Michelle S. Hirsch

Context.— Renal malignancies can be divided into cortical- and medullary-based tumors, the latter of which classically infiltrate the renal parenchyma by extending between nonneoplastic structures. Although high-grade cortical tumors can rarely exhibit the same growth pattern, the infiltrative morphology should elicit a differential diagnosis to be considered in each case. However, these diagnoses can be challenging to distinguish, especially on small renal biopsy samples. Objective.— To provide an overview of the clinical, gross, and microscopic findings; genetic and molecular alterations; and immunohistochemical evaluation of medullary-based renal tumors and other tumor types with overlapping morphologies and growth patterns. Data Sources.— Literature review and personal observations were used to compile the information in this review. Conclusions.— Collecting duct carcinoma is a prototypical medullary-based tumor, and although diagnostic criteria exist, it remains a diagnosis of exclusion, especially with ancillary techniques aiding the recognition of established as well as more recently described neoplasms. Other medullary-based malignancies included in the differential diagnosis include renal medullary carcinoma/renal cell carcinoma unclassified with medullary phenotype, fumarate hydratase–deficient renal cell carcinoma, and upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Moreover, other rare entities should be excluded, including metastatic carcinoma, lymphoma, and melanoma. In addition to potential prognostic differences, accurate diagnoses can have important surgical and clinical management implications.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 47-58
Author(s):  
Oleg E. Molchanov ◽  
Igor Yu. Lisitsyn

The article deals with the main problems concerning the optimization of treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Variants of the course of the disease after pseudoprogression are considered. The strategies of differential diagnosis and correction of treatment based on modern ideas about the pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma are considered in detail. Data of own researches in which the assessment of possibility of treatment without change of preparations in the first and second lines after primary progression is carried out are resulted.


2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiyo TANABE ◽  
Mitsuhide NARUSE ◽  
Tetsuya OGAWA ◽  
Fumio ITO ◽  
Sachiko TAKAGI ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Francesca Giunchi ◽  
Tania Franceschini ◽  
Elisa Gruppioni ◽  
Annalisa Altimari ◽  
Elisa Capizzi ◽  
...  

Background: Clear cell tubulo-papillary renal cell carcinoma (cctpRCC) is characterized by clear cell morphology, but differs from conventional clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC) for its indolent clinical behavior and genetic background. The differential diagnosis between the two is based on histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Methods: We performed a comparative case-control histological, IHC, and genetic analysis by next generation sequencing (NGS), to point out the differences in 10 cases of cctpRCC, and six controls of ccRCC with low stage and grade. Results: All 16 cases showed the IHC profile with cytokeratin 7, racemase, and carbonic anhydrase IX expected for the histological features of each tumor type. By contrast, the NGS mutation analysis that covered 207 amplicons of 50 oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes provided conflicting results. Among the 10 cctpRCC cases, eight (80%) were wild type for all of the genes in the panel, while two (20%) harbored VHL mutations typical of ccRCC. Three of the six (50%) ccRCC control cases showed expected VHL mutations; two (33%) harbored pathogenic mutations in the p53 or the CKIT genes; and one (16%) was wild type. Conclusion: We can assume that histology and ICH are not sufficient for a definitive diagnosis of cctpRCC or ccRCC. Although with a panel covering 50 genes, we found that 80% of cctpRCC were genetically silent; thus, suggesting an indolent biology of these tumors. The differential diagnosis between ccptRCC and ccRCC for the choice of the best therapeutic strategy likely requires the comprehensive evaluation of histology, IHC, and at least VHL mutations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document