AIMS: High-grade, poorly differentiated, infiltrative carcinomas involving the renal sinus region often pose challenging differential diagnostic considerations, specifically differentiation of urothelial carcinoma (UC) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Accurate classification, especially the distinction of UC from RCC, is critical, as therapeutic approaches differ. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cluster analysis was performed on immunohistochemical data from 18 invasive UCs, six CDCs, two RMCs, 18 type 2 papillary renal cell carcinomas (PRCCs) and 20 high-grade clear cell renal cell carcinomas (CRCCs) using a broad panel of traditional and novel immunohistochemical markers. The initial analysis with all antibodies segregates almost all the RCCs (45 of 46, 98%) from all the UCs based on the lack of expression of p63 in all (100%) RCCs, along with predominant strong expression of paired box gene 8 (PAX8) and vimentin, predominant lack of expression of high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMCK) and CK7 and variable expression of RCC, CD10, CA1X and PAX2. All the UCs cluster together with strong, diffuse reactivity for p63, predominant reactivity for CK7 and high molecular weight kininogen (HMWK), and absent to minimal staining with PAX8, RCC antigen, PAX2, alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) and vimentin. After removing antibodies with significant overlap and/or minimal impact, a second analysis with a limited panel including p63, CK7, vimentin, integrase interactor 1 (INI-1) and PAX8 was performed. Again, the majority of UCs cluster into one group and p63 positivity separates all UCs from RCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of INI-1 expression, noted exclusively in RMCs, segregates RMCs into a separate cluster. PAX8 is rarely positive (17%) in UC, is commonly expressed in CDC, RMC, PRCC and CRCC and is superior to PAX2.
AIMS: High-grade, poorly differentiated, infiltrative carcinomas involving the renal sinus region often pose challenging differential diagnostic considerations, specifically differentiation of urothelial carcinoma (UC) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Accurate classification, especially the distinction of UC from RCC, is critical, as therapeutic approaches differ. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cluster analysis was performed on immunohistochemical data from 18 invasive UCs, six CDCs, two RMCs, 18 type 2 papillary renal cell carcinomas (PRCCs) and 20 high-grade clear cell renal cell carcinomas (CRCCs) using a broad panel of traditional and novel immunohistochemical markers. The initial analysis with all antibodies segregates almost all the RCCs (45 of 46, 98%) from all the UCs based on the lack of expression of p63 in all (100%) RCCs, along with predominant strong expression of paired box gene 8 (PAX8) and vimentin, predominant lack of expression of high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMCK) and CK7 and variable expression of RCC, CD10, CA1X and PAX2. All the UCs cluster together with strong, diffuse reactivity for p63, predominant reactivity for CK7 and high molecular weight kininogen (HMWK), and absent to minimal staining with PAX8, RCC antigen, PAX2, alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) and vimentin. After removing antibodies with significant overlap and/or minimal impact, a second analysis with a limited panel including p63, CK7, vimentin, integrase interactor 1 (INI-1) and PAX8 was performed. Again, the majority of UCs cluster into one group and p63 positivity separates all UCs from RCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of INI-1 expression, noted exclusively in RMCs, segregates RMCs into a separate cluster. PAX8 is rarely positive (17%) in UC, is commonly expressed in CDC, RMC, PRCC and CRCC and is superior to PAX2.
Authors: Chisato Ohe; Steven C Smith; Deepika Sirohi; Mukul Divatia; Mariza de Peralta-Venturina; Gladell P Paner; Abbas Agaimy; Mitual B Amin; Pedram Argani; Ying-Bei Chen; Liang Cheng; Maurizio Colecchia; Eva Compérat; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Jonathan I Epstein; Anthony J Gill; Ondřej Hes; Michelle S Hirsch; Wolfram Jochum; Lakshmi P Kunju; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jesse K McKenney; Rohit Mehra; Gabriella Nesi; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Maria M Picken; Priya Rao; Victor E Reuter; Paulo Guilherme de Oliveira Salles; Luciana Schultz; Satish K Tickoo; Scott A Tomlins; Kiril Trpkov; Mahul B Amin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Neil Pugashetti; Stanley A Yap; Primo N Lara; Regina Gandour-Edwards; Marc A Dall'Era Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Meaghan L Barr; Lucia B Jilaveanu; Robert L Camp; Adebowale J Adeniran; Harriet M Kluger; Brian Shuch Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Frank Becker; Kerstin Junker; Martin Parr; Arndt Hartmann; Susanne Füssel; Marieta Toma; Rainer Grobholz; Thomas Pflugmann; Bernd Wullich; Arne Strauss; Carl Ludwig Behnes; Wolfgang Otto; Michael Stöckle; Volker Jung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 3.240