From the Journals

Clear cell RCC with papillary features is still ccRCC


 

FROM ANNALS OF DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with predominant papillary features is best classified as a rare morphologic variant of ccRCC, not MiT family translocation or papillary RCC, according to an analysis of 23 tumors.

Areas of papillary pattern made up anywhere from 40% to 100% of the 23 tumors. Even so, cytology and immunohistochemical and genetic testing was most consistent with ccRCC, and tumors were negative for TFE3 protein, which ruled out MiT family translocation RCC, reported Reza Alaghehbandan, MD, and his associates. The report is in Annals of Diagnostic Pathology.

The findings help clarify where ccRCC fits in the diagnostic tree when there’s significant papillary morphology, something that hasn’t been clear until now. The proper classification matters because it carries treatment implications; for instance, ccRCC generally responds well to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, but papillary RCC does not, so doctors often recommend treatment through a clinical trial.

“The presence of mixed morphologic components in renal neoplasms in general and in ccRCCs in particular can be puzzling in routine practice, which can potentially lead to misdiagnosis.” Getting it right is “crucial” to ensure the best treatment, said Dr. Alaghehbandan, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his associates.

Cytokeratin 7 (CK7) staining was negative in the nonpapillary areas of 20 tumors (87%), and only focally positive in three (13%). In contrast, clear cell papillary RCC is strongly and diffusely positive for CK7.

In papillary areas, Alpha-methyl CoA racemase was positive or focally positive in 17 tumors (73.9%); in nonpapillary areas, it was positive or focally positive in 22 (95.6%). Carbonic anhydrase IX was mainly negative in both nonpapillary and papillary areas, while vimentin and CD10 were positive or focally positive in both.

Patients were a mean of 65.2 years old, and 19 were men. The median tumor size was 6.5 cm. At a median follow-up of 2.5 years, two patients had died of their disease, and two had developed metastasis.

There was no industry funding, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

SOURCE: Alaghehbandan R et al. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2018 Nov 22. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2018.11.004.

Recommended Reading

ATLAS: High-risk RCC patients might benefit from adjuvant axitinib
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
KPNA2 is “novel prognostic factor” in RCC
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Striking racial/ethnic differences seen in RCC features
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Tumor burden in active surveillance for mRCC may inform treatment decisions
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Circulating tumor DNA identified by fragment size
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
SRS beats surgery in early control of brain mets, advantage fades with time
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Refractory immune-mediated colitis: Fecal transplant may be the answer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
PD-L1 correlates with worse sporadic, hereditary ccRCC outcomes
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
BAP1 expression augurs prognosis of metastatic RCC
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Stereotactic radiotherapy highly effective for brain mets in RCC
MDedge Hematology and Oncology