AIMS: To assess the usefulness of immunohistochemistry in delineating tumour diagnoses on a series of morphologically diagnosed renal spindle cell tumours (RSCTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from 31 morphologically diagnosed tumours were reinterpreted in light of newly obtained immunohistochemical information. By morphology, six had originally been classified as sarcomatoid carcinoma, five as spindle cell tumour (NOS), four as sarcoma (NOS), three as leiomyoma, three as leiomyosarcoma, and one each as fibrous polyp, hamartoma, neurilemmoma, mesoblastic nephroma, medullary fibroma, angiomyolipoma, haemangiopericytoma, malignant rhabdoid tumour, malignant Triton tumour, and carcinosarcoma. The application of immunohistochemistry verified the original diagnosis in 18 cases (18/31, 58%), confirming the diagnosis of sarcomatoid renal carcinoma (4/6), leiomyoma (2/3), leiomyosarcoma (3/3), sarcoma (NOS) (2/4), carcinosarcoma (1/1), malignant rhabdoid tumour (1/1), malignant Triton tumour (1/1), fibrous polyp (1/1), mesoblastic nephroma (1/1), hamartoma (1/1), and angiomyolipoma (1/1). Different tumour designations were suggested in 13 cases (13/31, 42%), including carcinosarcoma, sarcoma (NOS), leiomyosarcoma, solitary fibrous tumour, monomorphic/biphasic angiomyolipoma, endometrial stromal tumour, and congenital mesoblastic nephroma. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that although morphology is most important in formulating the initial differential diagnosis, the addition of immunohistochemistry is vital in arriving at the correct classification of RSCTs.
AIMS: To assess the usefulness of immunohistochemistry in delineating tumour diagnoses on a series of morphologically diagnosed renal spindle cell tumours (RSCTs). METHODS AND RESULTS:Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from 31 morphologically diagnosed tumours were reinterpreted in light of newly obtained immunohistochemical information. By morphology, six had originally been classified as sarcomatoid carcinoma, five as spindle cell tumour (NOS), four as sarcoma (NOS), three as leiomyoma, three as leiomyosarcoma, and one each as fibrous polyp, hamartoma, neurilemmoma, mesoblastic nephroma, medullary fibroma, angiomyolipoma, haemangiopericytoma, malignant rhabdoid tumour, malignant Triton tumour, and carcinosarcoma. The application of immunohistochemistry verified the original diagnosis in 18 cases (18/31, 58%), confirming the diagnosis of sarcomatoid renal carcinoma (4/6), leiomyoma (2/3), leiomyosarcoma (3/3), sarcoma (NOS) (2/4), carcinosarcoma (1/1), malignant rhabdoid tumour (1/1), malignant Triton tumour (1/1), fibrous polyp (1/1), mesoblastic nephroma (1/1), hamartoma (1/1), and angiomyolipoma (1/1). Different tumour designations were suggested in 13 cases (13/31, 42%), including carcinosarcoma, sarcoma (NOS), leiomyosarcoma, solitary fibrous tumour, monomorphic/biphasic angiomyolipoma, endometrial stromal tumour, and congenital mesoblastic nephroma. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that although morphology is most important in formulating the initial differential diagnosis, the addition of immunohistochemistry is vital in arriving at the correct classification of RSCTs.
Authors: Vikas Mehta; Girish Venkataraman; Tatjana Antic; Tara C Rubinas; I Caroline Le Poole; Maria M Picken Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 4.064