The International Society of Urological Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference made recommendations regarding classification, prognostic factors, staging, and immunohistochemical and molecular assessment of adult renal tumors. Issues relating to prognostic factors were coordinated by a workgroup who identified tumor morphotype, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation, tumor necrosis, grading, and microvascular invasion as potential prognostic parameters. There was consensus that the main morphotypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were of prognostic significance, that subtyping of papillary RCC (types 1 and 2) provided additional prognostic information, and that clear cell tubulopapillary RCC was associated with a more favorable outcome. For tumors showing sarcomatoid or rhabdoid differentiation, there was consensus that a minimum proportion of tumor was not required for diagnostic purposes. It was also agreed upon that the underlying subtype of carcinoma should be reported. For sarcomatoid carcinoma, it was further agreed upon that if the underlying carcinoma subtype was absent the tumor should be classified as a grade 4 unclassified carcinoma with a sarcomatoid component. Tumor necrosis was considered to have prognostic significance, with assessment based on macroscopic and microscopic examination of the tumor. It was recommended that for clear cell RCC the amount of necrosis should be quantified. There was consensus that nucleolar prominence defined grades 1 to 3 of clear cell and papillary RCCs, whereas extreme nuclear pleomorphism or sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation defined grade 4 tumors. It was agreed upon that chromophobe RCC should not be graded. There was consensus that microvascular invasion should not be included as a staging criterion for RCC.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome-associated renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are difficult to diagnose prospectively. We used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to identify fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient tumors (defined as FH negative, 2-succinocysteine [2SC] positive) in cases diagnosed as "unclassified RCC, high grade or with papillary pattern," or "papillary RCC type 2," from multiple institutions. A total of 124 tumors (from 118 patients) were evaluated by IHC for FH and 2SC. An FH deficiency was found in 24/124 (19%) cases. An indeterminate result (only 1 marker abnormal) was found in 27/124 (22%) cases. In a tissue microarray of 776 RCCs of different types, only 2 (0.5%) tumors, initially considered papillary type 2, were FH deficient. FH mutations were found in 19/21 FH-deficient tumors (with confirmed germline mutations in 9 of 9 tumors in which germline status could be assessed) and in 1/26 FH-indeterminate tumors identified by IHC. No FH mutations were found in 2/21 FH-deficient RCCs, 25/26 FH-indeterminate RCCs, and 10/10 RCCs demonstrating FH expression by IHC. Patients with FH-deficient RCC had a median age of 44 years (range, 21 to 65 y). Average tumor size was 8.2 cm (range, 0.9 to 18 cm). FH-deficient RCCs were characterized by at least focal macronucleoli and demonstrated 2 or more growth patterns in 93% cases. Papillary was the most common (74%) and dominant (59%) pattern, whereas other common patterns included: solid (44%), tubulocystic (41%), cribriform (41%), and cystic (33%). At presentation, 57% were stage ≥pT3, 52% had positive nodes, and 19% had distant metastases. After a mean follow-up of 27 months (range, 1 to 114 mo), 39% of patients were dead of disease, and 26% had disease progression. We conclude that FH and 2SC are useful IHC ancillary tools, which allow recognition of FH-deficient RCC.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome secondary to germline fumarate hydratase (FH) mutation presents with cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas, and a distinctive aggressive renal carcinoma. Identification of HLRCC patients presenting first with uterine leiomyomas may allow early intervention for renal carcinoma. We reviewed the morphology and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings in patients with uterine leiomyomas and confirmed or presumed HLRCC. IHC was also performed on a tissue microarray of unselected uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. FH-deficient leiomyomas underwent Sanger and massively parallel sequencing on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. All 5 patients with HLRCC had at least 1 FH-deficient leiomyoma: defined as completely negative FH staining with positive internal controls. One percent (12/1152) of unselected uterine leiomyomas but 0 of 88 leiomyosarcomas were FH deficient. FH-deficient leiomyoma patients were younger (42.7 vs. 48.8 y, P=0.024) and commonly demonstrated a distinctive hemangiopericytomatous vasculature. Other features reported to be associated with FH-deficient leiomyomas (hypercellularity, nuclear atypia, inclusion-like nucleoli, stromal edema) were inconstantly present. Somatic FH mutations were identified in 6 of 10 informative unselected FH-deficient leiomyomas. None of these mutations were found in the germline. We conclude that, while the great majority of patients with HLRCC will have FH-deficient leiomyomas, 1% of all uterine leiomyomas are FH deficient usually due to somatic inactivation. Although IHC screening for FH may have a role in confirming patients at high risk for hereditary disease before genetic testing, prospective identification of FH-deficient leiomyomas is of limited clinical benefit in screening unselected patients because of the relatively high incidence of somatic mutations.

The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants’ responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.

The International Society of Urologic Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference on renal cancer, through working group 3, focused on the issues of staging and specimen handling of renal tumors. The conference was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urologic Pathology members, and the results of this were used to inform the focus of conference discussion. On formal voting a ≥65% majority was considered a consensus agreement. For specimen handling it was agreed that with radical nephrectomy specimens the initial cut should be made along the long axis and that both radical and partial nephrectomy specimens should be inked. It was recommended that sampling of renal tumors should follow a general guideline of sampling 1 block/cm with a minimum of 3 blocks (subject to modification as needed in individual cases). When measuring a renal tumor, the length of a renal vein/caval thrombus should not be part of the measurement of the main tumor mass. In cases with multiple tumors, sampling should include at a minimum the 5 largest tumors. There was a consensus that perinephric fat invasion should be determined by examining multiple perpendicular sections of the tumor/perinephric fat interface and by sampling areas suspicious for invasion. Perinephric fat invasion was defined as either the tumor touching the fat or extending as irregular tongues into the perinephric tissue, with or without desmoplasia. It was agreed upon that renal sinus invasion is present when the tumor is in direct contact with the sinus fat or the loose connective tissue of the sinus, clearly beyond the renal parenchyma, or if there is involvement of any endothelium-lined spaces within the renal sinus, regardless of the size. When invasion of the renal sinus is uncertain, it was recommended that at least 3 blocks of the tumor-renal sinus interface should be submitted. If invasion is grossly evident, or obviously not present (small peripheral tumor), it was agreed that only 1 block was needed to confirm the gross impression. Other recommendations were that the renal vein margin be considered positive only when there is adherent tumor visible microscopically at the actual margin. When a specimen is submitted separately as "caval thrombus," the recommended sampling strategy is to take 2 or more sections to look for the adherent caval wall tissue. It was also recommended that uninvolved renal parenchyma be sampled by including normal parenchyma with tumor and normal parenchyma distant from the tumor. There was consensus that radical nephrectomy specimens should be examined for the purpose of identifying lymph nodes by dissection/palpation of the fat in the hilar area only; however, it was acknowledged that lymph nodes are found in <10% of radical nephrectomy specimens.