Thu Tran1, Carol L Jones2, Sean R Williamson3, John N Eble1, David J Grignon1, Shaobo Zhang1, Mingsheng Wang1, Lee Ann Baldridge1, Lisha Wang4, Rodolfo Montironi5, Marina Scarpelli5, Puay-Hoon Tan6, Novae B Simper1, Eva Comperat7, Liang Cheng1,8. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Centre, Shanghai, China. 5. Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy. 6. Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 7. Department Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. 8. Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Some studies have suggested that tubulocystic carcinoma may be related to papillary renal cell carcinoma. We sought to compare and contrast the molecular and immunohistochemical profiles of tubulocystic carcinoma with those of papillary renal cell carcinoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve cases of pure tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma were subjected to fluorescence in-situ hybridization assessment of chromosomal number for chromosomes 7 and 17, and for TFE3 translocation. Immunohistochemical labelling for AMACR, p63, cytokeratin 7, PAX8, cytokeratin 20 and carbonic anhydrase IX was assessed in all tumours. No tumour showed gains of chromosomes 7 or 17, or TFE3 translocation by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Immunohistochemistry revealed all tumours to be non-reactive with antibodies against p63 and cytokeratin 20. Conversely, the antibody against AMACR gave a positive reaction in the neoplastic cells of all tumours. Four tumours showed focal labelling with antibody against carbonic anhydrase IX, and five tumours showed focally positive reactions with antibody against cytokeratin 7. Recurrence and metastatic disease were not found for the patients with available follow-up information. CONCLUSIONS: Pure tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma is an indolent tumour with a good prognosis. Our data support the distinction of this neoplasm as a separate entity.
AIMS: Some studies have suggested that tubulocystic carcinoma may be related to papillary renal cell carcinoma. We sought to compare and contrast the molecular and immunohistochemical profiles of tubulocystic carcinoma with those of papillary renal cell carcinoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve cases of pure tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma were subjected to fluorescence in-situ hybridization assessment of chromosomal number for chromosomes 7 and 17, and for TFE3 translocation. Immunohistochemical labelling for AMACR, p63, cytokeratin 7, PAX8, cytokeratin 20 and carbonic anhydrase IX was assessed in all tumours. No tumour showed gains of chromosomes 7 or 17, or TFE3 translocation by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Immunohistochemistry revealed all tumours to be non-reactive with antibodies against p63 and cytokeratin 20. Conversely, the antibody against AMACR gave a positive reaction in the neoplastic cells of all tumours. Four tumours showed focal labelling with antibody against carbonic anhydrase IX, and five tumours showed focally positive reactions with antibody against cytokeratin 7. Recurrence and metastatic disease were not found for the patients with available follow-up information. CONCLUSIONS: Pure tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma is an indolent tumour with a good prognosis. Our data support the distinction of this neoplasm as a separate entity.
Authors: Maria Pané Foix; Ana Dunatov; Petr Martinek; Enric Condom Mundó; Saul Suster; Maris Sperga; Jose I Lopez; Monika Ulamec; Stela Bulimbasic; Delia Perez Montiel; Reza Alaghehbandan; Kvetoslava Peckova; Krystina Pivovarcikova; Daum Ondrej; Pavla Rotterova; Faruk Skenderi; Kristyna Prochazkova; Martin Dusek; Milan Hora; Michal Michal; Ondrej Hes Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Steven C Smith; Kiril Trpkov; Ying-Bei Chen; Rohit Mehra; Deepika Sirohi; Chisato Ohe; Andi K Cani; Daniel H Hovelson; Kei Omata; Jonathan B McHugh; Wolfram Jochum; Maurizio Colecchia; Mitual Amin; Mukul K Divatia; Ondřej Hes; Santosh Menon; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Sergio Tripodi; Fadi Brimo; Anthony J Gill; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Mathilde Sibony; Sean R Williamson; Gabriella Nesi; Maria M Picken; Fiona Maclean; Abbas Agaimy; Liang Cheng; Jonathan I Epstein; Victor E Reuter; Satish K Tickoo; Scott A Tomlins; Mahul B Amin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Kiril Trpkov; Ondrej Hes; Sean R Williamson; Anthony J Gill; Adebowale J Adeniran; Abbas Agaimy; Reza Alaghehbandan; Mahul B Amin; Pedram Argani; Ying-Bei Chen; Liang Cheng; Jonathan I Epstein; John C Cheville; Eva Comperat; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Sounak Gupta; Huiying He; Michelle S Hirsch; Peter A Humphrey; Payal Kapur; Fumiyoshi Kojima; Jose I Lopez; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jesse K McKenney; Rohit Mehra; Santosh Menon; George J Netto; Christopher G Przybycin; Priya Rao; Qiu Rao; Victor E Reuter; Rola M Saleeb; Rajal B Shah; Steven C Smith; Satish Tickoo; Maria S Tretiakova; Lawrence True; Virginie Verkarre; Sara E Wobker; Ming Zhou Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 8.209