AIMS: Renal epithelial neoplasms (RENs) can be difficult to subclassify, owing to overlapping morphological features. Carbonic anhydrase 9 (CA9) is a common biomarker for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC); however, the sensitivity and specificity across REN subtypes are less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate CA9 expression in RENs, especially those in the differential diagnosis with CCRCC and less common entities, to determine its reliability as a diagnostic biomarker. METHODS AND RESULTS: CA9 immunostaining was performed on 262 RENs, including 119 CCRCCs and 143 non-CCRCC. Immunostaining was evaluated as negative (0%), rare (1+, 1-10%), focal (2+, 11-50%), or diffuse (3+, >50%). CCRCCs were 3+ CA9-positive in 93% of cases; 4% were CA9-negative. Sixty-seven percent of papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) were 1+/2+ CA9-positive, whereas 33% were CA9-negative. Chromophobe RCCs were nearly always CA9-negative (93%), with 7% showing rare cell reactivity. Clear cell tubulopapillary RCCs (CCTPRCCs) were consistently 3+ CA9-positive, but with a cup-like staining pattern. Fifty-three percent of Xp11.2 RCCs were CA9-negative; however, 6% were 3+ CA9-positive and 12% were 2+ CA9-positive. Two of eight fumarate hydratase-deficient RCCs were 3+ CA9-positive. A small subset of the remaining RCCs showed rare to focal CA9 expression. All oncocytomas and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCCs were CA9-negative. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, diffuse CA9 expression was identified in nearly all CCRCCs and in all CCTPRCCs (high sensitivity); however, CA9 was not entirely specific. At least focal CA9 expression can been seen in a subset of many RCCs, and such findings should be taken into consideration with other morphological, immunophenotypic and clinical findings.
AIMS: Renal epithelial neoplasms (RENs) can be difficult to subclassify, owing to overlapping morphological features. Carbonic anhydrase 9 (CA9) is a common biomarker for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC); however, the sensitivity and specificity across REN subtypes are less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate CA9 expression in RENs, especially those in the differential diagnosis with CCRCC and less common entities, to determine its reliability as a diagnostic biomarker. METHODS AND RESULTS:CA9 immunostaining was performed on 262 RENs, including 119 CCRCCs and 143 non-CCRCC. Immunostaining was evaluated as negative (0%), rare (1+, 1-10%), focal (2+, 11-50%), or diffuse (3+, >50%). CCRCCs were 3+ CA9-positive in 93% of cases; 4% were CA9-negative. Sixty-seven percent of papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) were 1+/2+ CA9-positive, whereas 33% were CA9-negative. Chromophobe RCCs were nearly always CA9-negative (93%), with 7% showing rare cell reactivity. Clear cell tubulopapillary RCCs (CCTPRCCs) were consistently 3+ CA9-positive, but with a cup-like staining pattern. Fifty-three percent of Xp11.2 RCCs were CA9-negative; however, 6% were 3+ CA9-positive and 12% were 2+ CA9-positive. Two of eight fumarate hydratase-deficient RCCs were 3+ CA9-positive. A small subset of the remaining RCCs showed rare to focal CA9 expression. All oncocytomas and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCCs were CA9-negative. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, diffuse CA9 expression was identified in nearly all CCRCCs and in all CCTPRCCs (high sensitivity); however, CA9 was not entirely specific. At least focal CA9 expression can been seen in a subset of many RCCs, and such findings should be taken into consideration with other morphological, immunophenotypic and clinical findings.
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
Authors: Daniela Russo; Silvia Varricchio; Gennaro Ilardi; Francesco Martino; Rosa Maria Di Crescenzo; Sara Pignatiello; Massimiliano Scalvenzi; Claudia Costa; Massimo Mascolo; Francesco Merolla; Stefania Staibano Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 6.244