Oleksandr N Kryvenko1, Merce Jorda, Pedram Argani, Jonathan I Epstein. 1. From the Departments of Pathology (Drs Kryvenko and Jorda) and Urology (Drs Kryvenko and Jorda), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; and the Departments of Pathology (Drs Argani and Epstein), Oncology (Drs Argani and Epstein), and Urology (Dr Epstein), The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Eosinophilic renal neoplasms include a spectrum of solid and papillary tumors ranging from indolent benign oncocytoma to highly aggressive malignancies. Recognition of the correct nature of the tumor, especially in biopsy specimens, is paramount for patient management. OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms with light microscopy and ancillary techniques. DATA SOURCES: Review of the published literature and personal experience. CONCLUSIONS: The following tumors are in the differential diagnosis of oncocytic renal cell neoplasm: oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hybrid tumor, tubulocystic carcinoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC with predominant eosinophilic cell morphology, follicular thyroid-like RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, rhabdoid RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor translocation RCC, epithelioid angiomyolipoma, and unclassified RCC. In low-grade nonpapillary eosinophilic neoplasms, distinction between oncocytoma and low-grade RCC mostly rests on histomorphology; however, cytokeratin 7 immunostain may be helpful. In high-grade nonpapillary lesions, there is more of a role for ancillary techniques, including immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7, CA9, CD10, racemase, HMB45, and Melan-A. In papillary eosinophilic neoplasms, it is important to distinguish sporadic type 2 papillary RCC from microphthalmia transcription factor translocation and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. Histologic and cytologic features along with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB [t(6;11)] are reliable confirmatory tests. Eosinophilic epithelial neoplasms with architecture, cytology, and/or immunoprofile not qualifying for either of the established types of RCC should be classified as unclassified eosinophilic RCC and arbitrarily assigned a grade (low or high).
CONTEXT: Eosinophilic renal neoplasms include a spectrum of solid and papillary tumors ranging from indolent benign oncocytoma to highly aggressive malignancies. Recognition of the correct nature of the tumor, especially in biopsy specimens, is paramount for patient management. OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms with light microscopy and ancillary techniques. DATA SOURCES: Review of the published literature and personal experience. CONCLUSIONS: The following tumors are in the differential diagnosis of oncocytic renal cell neoplasm: oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hybrid tumor, tubulocystic carcinoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC with predominant eosinophilic cell morphology, follicular thyroid-like RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, rhabdoid RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor translocation RCC, epithelioid angiomyolipoma, and unclassified RCC. In low-grade nonpapillary eosinophilic neoplasms, distinction between oncocytoma and low-grade RCC mostly rests on histomorphology; however, cytokeratin 7 immunostain may be helpful. In high-grade nonpapillary lesions, there is more of a role for ancillary techniques, including immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7, CA9, CD10, racemase, HMB45, and Melan-A. In papillary eosinophilic neoplasms, it is important to distinguish sporadic type 2 papillary RCC from microphthalmia transcription factor translocation and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. Histologic and cytologic features along with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB [t(6;11)] are reliable confirmatory tests. Eosinophilic epithelial neoplasms with architecture, cytology, and/or immunoprofile not qualifying for either of the established types of RCC should be classified as unclassified eosinophilic RCC and arbitrarily assigned a grade (low or high).
Authors: Satish K Tickoo; Mariza N dePeralta-Venturina; Lara R Harik; Heath D Worcester; Mohamed E Salama; Andrew N Young; Holger Moch; Mahul B Amin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: X J Yang; M Takahashi; K T Schafernak; M S Tretiakova; J Sugimura; N J Vogelzang; B T Teh Journal: Histopathology Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Luca Cindolo; Alexandre de la Taille; Luigi Schips; Richard E Zigeuner; Vincenzo Ficarra; Jacques Tostain; Walter Artibani; Antonio Gallo; Luigi Salzano; Jean-Jacques Patard Journal: Urology Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Pedram Argani; Marick Laé; Brian Hutchinson; Victor E Reuter; Margaret H Collins; John Perentesis; John E Tomaszewski; John S J Brooks; Geza Acs; Julia A Bridge; Sara O Vargas; Ian J Davis; David E Fisher; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Brett Delahunt; Dianne Sika-Paotonu; Peter B Bethwaite; Margaret R E McCredie; Guido Martignoni; John N Eble; T William Jordan Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Robert L Grubb; Michael E Franks; Jorge Toro; Lindsay Middelton; Lynda Choyke; Sarah Fowler; Carlos Torres-Cabala; Gladys M Glenn; Peter Choyke; Maria J Merino; Berton Zbar; Peter A Pinto; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Jonathan A Coleman; W Marston Linehan Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicholas J Farber; Christopher J Kim; Parth K Modi; Jane D Hon; Evita T Sadimin; Eric A Singer Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Elzbieta Sarnowska; Michal Szymanski; Nataliia Rusetska; Marcin Ligaj; Iga Jancewicz; Pawel Cwiek; Marta Skrodzka; Marcin Leszczynski; Joanna Szarkowska; Alicja Chrzan; Malgorzata Stachowiak; Jaroslaw Steciuk; Anna Maassen; Lech Galek; Tomasz Demkow; Janusz A Siedlecki; Tomasz J Sarnowski Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 6.166