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.

No abstract

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.

A case of cutaneous myoepithelioma is reported. The tumor was composed of spindle-shaped, epithelioid, and plasmacytoid (hyaline) cells. It exhibited a widespread immunoreactivity for low molecular weight keratins and protein S-100, being irregularly positive for smooth muscle actin. Ultrastructural studies of tumor cells showed a variable content of intermediate filaments, with focal densities resembling smooth muscle dense bodies. A well-developed basal lamina, pinocytotic vesicles, and some desmosomes were also observed. In spite of being accepted as an individual entity, myoepitheliomas probably belong to a family of lesions that include mixed tumors. Therefore, this case can be considered as a salivary-gland-type tumor, probably originating from myoepithelial cells of sweat glands. The existence of this unique neoplasm provides further support to the debated role of myoepithelial cells in the development of mixed tumors.

No abstract