Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) accounts for 5% to 7% of all renal cell carcinomas. It was thought for many years that ChRCC exhibits a hypodiploid genome. Recent studies using advanced molecular genetics techniques have shown more complex and heterogenous pattern with frequent chromosomal gains. Historically, multiple losses of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 have been considered a genetic hallmark of ChRCC, both for classic and eosinophilic ChRCC variants. In the last 2 decades, multiple chromosomal gains in ChRCCs have also been documented, depicting a considerably broader genetic spectrum than previously thought. Studies of rare morphologic variants including ChRCC with pigmented microcystic adenomatoid/multicystic growth, ChRCC with neuroendocrine differentiation, ChRCC with papillary architecture, and renal oncocytoma-like variants also showed variable chromosomal numerical aberrations, including multiple losses (common), gains (less common), or chromosomal changes overlapping with renal oncocytoma. Although not the focus of the review, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data in ChRCC show TP53, PTEN, and CDKN2A to be the most mutated genes. Given the complexity of molecular genetic alterations in ChRCC, this review analyzed the existing published data, aiming to present a comprehensive up-to-date survey of the chromosomal abnormalities in classic ChRCC and its variants. The potential role of chromosomal numerical aberrations in the differential diagnostic evaluation may be limited, potentially owing to its high variability.
Staging criteria for renal cell carcinoma differ from many other cancers, in that renal tumors are often spherical with subtle, finger-like extensions into veins, renal sinus, or perinephric tissue. We sought to study interobserver agreement in pathologic stage categories for challenging cases. An online survey was circulated to urologic pathologists interested in kidney tumors, yielding 89% response (31/35). Most questions included 1 to 4 images, focusing on: vascular and renal sinus invasion (n=24), perinephric invasion (n=9), and gross pathology/specimen handling (n=17). Responses were collapsed for analysis into positive and negative/equivocal for upstaging. Consensus was regarded as an agreement of 67% (2/3) of participants, which was reached in 20/33 (61%) evaluable scenarios regarding renal sinus, perinephric, or vein invasion, of which 13/33 (39%) had ≥80% consensus. Lack of agreement was especially encountered regarding small tumor protrusions into a possible vascular lumen, close to the tumor leading edge. For gross photographs, most were interpreted as suspicious but requiring histologic confirmation. Most participants (61%) rarely used special stains to evaluate vascular invasion, usually endothelial markers (81%). Most agreed that a spherical mass bulging well beyond the kidney parenchyma into the renal sinus (71%) or perinephric fat (90%) did not necessarily indicate invasion. Interobserver agreement in pathologic staging of renal cancer is relatively good among urologic pathologists interested in kidney tumors, even when selecting cases that test the earliest and borderline thresholds for extrarenal extension. Disagreements remain, however, particularly for tumors with small, finger-like protrusions, closely juxtaposed to the main mass.
- MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk patologie MeSH
- laboratorní medicína metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory ledvin patologie MeSH
- odchylka pozorovatele MeSH
- patologové MeSH
- staging nádorů metody MeSH
- urologie metody MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
