The spectrum of the renal oncocytic tumors has been expanded in recent years to include several novel and emerging entities. We describe a cohort of novel, hitherto unrecognized and morphologically distinct high-grade oncocytic tumors (HOT), currently diagnosed as "unclassified" in the WHO classification. We identified 14 HOT by searching multiple institutional archives. Morphologic, immunohistochemical (IHC), molecular genetic, and molecular karyotyping studies were performed to investigate these tumors. The patients included 3 men and 11 women, with age range from 25 to 73 years (median 50, mean 49 years). Tumor size ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 cm in the greatest dimension (median 3, mean 3.4 cm). The tumors were all pT1 stage. Microscopically, they showed nested to solid growth, and focal tubulocystic architecture. The neoplastic cells were uniform with voluminous oncocytic cytoplasm. Prominent intracytoplasmic vacuoles were frequently seen, but no irregular (raisinoid) nuclei or perinuclear halos were present. All tumors demonstrated prominent nucleoli (WHO/ISUP grade 3 equivalent). Nine of 14 cases were positive for CD117 and cytokeratin (CK) 7 was either negative or only focally positive in of 6/14 cases. All tumors were positive for AE1-AE3, CK18, PAX 8, antimitochondrial antigen, and SDHB. Cathepsin K was positive in 13/14 cases and CD10 was positive in 12/13 cases. All cases were negative for TFE3, HMB45, Melan-A. No TFEB and TFE3 genes rearrangement was found in analyzable cases. By array CGH, complete chromosomal losses or gains were not found in any of the cases, and 3/9 cases showed absence of any abnormalities. Chromosomal losses were detected on chromosome 19 (4/9), 3 with losses of the short arm (p) and 1 with losses of both arms (p and q). Loss of chromosome 1 was found in 3/9 cases; gain of 5q was found in 1/9 cases. On molecular karyotyping, 3/3 evaluated cases showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on 16p11.2-11.1 and 2/3 cases showed LOH at 7q31.31. Copy number (CN) losses were found at 7q11.21 (3/3), Xp11.21 (3/3), Xp11.22-11.21 (3/3), and Xq24-25 (2/3). CN gains were found at 13q34 (2/3). Ten patients with available follow up information were alive and without disease progression, after a mean follow-up of 28 months (1 to 112 months). HOT is a tumor with unique morphology and its IHC profile appears mostly consistent. HOT should be considered as an emerging renal entity because it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for other recognized eosinophilic renal tumors, such as oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFE3 and TFEB RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC.

Aim To describe a group of distinct low‐grade oncocytic renal tumours that demonstrate CD117 negative/cytokeratin (CK) 7‐positive immunoprofile. Methods and results We identified 28 such tumours from four large renal tumour archives. We performed immunohistochemistry for: CK7, CD117, PAX8, CD10, AMACR, e‐cadherin, CK20, CA9, AE1/AE3, vimentin, BerEP4, MOC31, CK5/6, p63, HMB45, melan A, CD15 and FH. In 14 cases we performed array CGH, with a successful result in nine cases. Median patient age was 66 years (range 49–78 years) with a male‐to‐female ratio of 1:1.8. Median tumour size was 3 cm (range 1.1–13.5 cm). All were single tumours, solid and tan‐brown, without a syndromic association. On microscopy, all cases showed solid and compact nested growth. There were frequent areas of oedematous stroma with loosely arranged cells. The tumour cells had oncocytic cytoplasm with uniformly round to oval nuclei, but without significant irregularities, and showed only focal perinuclear halos. Negative CD117 and positive CK7 reactivity were present in all cases (in two cases there was focal and very weak CD117 reactivity). Uniform reactivity was found for PAX8, AE1/AE3, e‐cadherin, BerEP4 and MOC31. Negative stains included CA9, CK20, vimentin, CK5/6, p63, HMB45, Melan A and CD15. CD10 and AMACR were either negative or focally positive; FH was retained. On array CGH, there were frequent deletions at 19p13.3 (seven of nine), 1p36.33 (five of nine) and 19q13.11 (four of nine); disomic status was found in two of nine cases. On follow‐up (mean 31.8 months, range 1–118), all patients were alive with no disease progression. Conclusion Low‐grade oncocytic tumours that are CD117‐negative/CK7‐positive demonstrate consistent and readily recognisable morphology, immunoprofile and indolent behaviour.

A clinicopathologic study of 108 cases of high-grade urothelial carcinomas of the renal pelvis is presented. Of the 108 tumors, 44 (40%) showed unusual morphologic features, including micropapillary areas (four cases), lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (two cases), sarcomatoid carcinoma (eight cases, including pseudoangiosarcomatous type), squamous differentiation and squamous cell carcinoma (15 cases), clear cells (two cases), glandular differentiation (two cases), rhabdoid, signet-ring or plasmacytoid cells (four cases), pseudosarcomatous stromal changes (four cases) and intratubular extension into the renal pelvis (three cases). Pathological staging was available in 62 patients; of these, 46 cases (74%) were in high stage (pT2-pT4) and 16 (26%) were in low stage (pTis, pTa, pT1). Clinical follow-up ranging from 1 to 256 months (median: 50 months) was available in 42 patients; of these, 26 (61%) died of tumor with a median survival of 31 months. The patients who did not die of their tumors showed only minimal or focal infiltration of the renal parenchyma by urothelial carcinoma, whereas those who died of their tumors showed massive infiltration of the kidney by the tumor. High-grade urothelial carcinomas of the renal pelvis can show a broad spectrum of histologic features similar to those seen in the urinary bladder. Our results support the finding that, unlike urothelial carcinomas of the bladder, the majority of primary urothelial carcinomas of the renal pelvis are of high histologic grade and present in advanced stages. Our study further highlights the fact that, in the renal pelvis, urothelial carcinomas show a tendency to frequently display unusual morphologic features and metaplastic phenomena. The importance of recognizing these morphologic variants of urothelial carcinoma in the renal pelvis is to avoid confusion with other conditions. The possibility of a high-grade urothelial carcinoma should always be considered in the evaluation of a tumor displaying unusual morphologic features in the renal pelvis, and attention to proper sampling as well as the use of immunohistochemical stains will be of importance to arrive at the correct diagnosis.