| Literature DB >> 33514585 |
Mahmut Akgul1, Sean R Williamson2, Dilek Ertoy3, Pedram Argani4, Sounak Gupta5, Anna Caliò6, Victor Reuter7, Satish Tickoo7, Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie8, George J Netto9, Ondrej Hes10,11, Michelle S Hirsch12, Brett Delahunt13, Rohit Mehra14, Stephanie Skala14, Adeboye O Osunkoya15, Lara Harik15, Priya Rao16, Ankur R Sangoi17, Maya Nourieh18, Debra L Zynger19, Steven Cristopher Smith20, Tipu Nazeer21, Berrak Gumuskaya22, Ibrahim Kulac3, Francesca Khani23, Maria S Tretiakova24, Funda Vakar-Lopez24, Guliz Barkan25, Vincent Molinié26, Virginie Verkarre27, Qiu Rao28, Lorand Kis29, Angel Panizo30, Ted Farzaneh31, Martin J Magers32, Joseph Sanfrancesco33, Carmen Perrino34, Dibson Gondim35, Ronald Araneta36, Jeffrey S So37, Jae Y Ro38, Matthew Wasco39, Omar Hameed40, Antonio Lopez-Beltran41, Hemamali Samaratunga42, Sara E Wobker43, Jonathan Melamed44, Liang Cheng45, Muhammad T Idrees45.
Abstract
Transcription factor E3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) has heterogenous morphologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features.131 pathologists with genitourinary expertise were invited in an online survey containing 23 questions assessing their experience on TFE3-RCC diagnostic work-up.Fifty (38%) participants completed the survey. 46 of 50 participants reported multiple patterns, most commonly papillary pattern (almost always 9/46, 19.5%; frequently 29/46, 63%). Large epithelioid cells with abundant cytoplasm were the most encountered cytologic feature, with either clear (almost always 10/50, 20%; frequently 34/50, 68%) or eosinophilic (almost always 4/49, 8%; frequently 28/49, 57%) cytology. Strong (3+) or diffuse (>75% of tumour cells) nuclear TFE3 IHC expression was considered diagnostic by 13/46 (28%) and 12/47 (26%) participants, respectively. Main TFE3 IHC issues were the low specificity (16/42, 38%), unreliable staining performance (15/42, 36%) and background staining (12/42, 29%). Most preferred IHC assays other than TFE3, cathepsin K and pancytokeratin were melan A (44/50, 88%), HMB45 (43/50, 86%), carbonic anhydrase IX (41/50, 82%) and CK7 (32/50, 64%). Cut-off for positive TFE3 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) was preferably 10% (9/50, 18%), although significant variation in cut-off values was present. 23/48 (48%) participants required TFE3 FISH testing to confirm TFE3-RCC regardless of the histomorphologic and IHC assessment. 28/50 (56%) participants would request additional molecular studies other than FISH assay in selected cases, whereas 3/50 participants use additional molecular cases in all cases when TFE3-RCC is in the differential.Optimal diagnostic approach on TFE3-RCC is impacted by IHC and/or FISH assay preferences as well as their conflicting interpretation methods. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: genitourinary pathology; immunohistochemistry; kidney neoplasms
Year: 2021 PMID: 33514585 DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-207372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Pathol ISSN: 0021-9746 Impact factor: 3.411