related or recurring gene alterations were identified. In addition to the previously described IHC findings, 16 of 16 were positive for GATA3. Eleven patients with follow-up had no metastases or recurrent tumours. Recurrent tuberous sclerosis/MTOR pathway gene alterations in LOT support its consideration as a distinct morphological, immunohistochemical and genetic entity. PIK3CA is another pathway member that may be altered in these tumours. Further study will be necessary to determine whether tumour behaviour or syndromic associations differ from those of oncocytoma and chromophobe carcinoma, warranting different clinical consideration.

AimsLow-grade oncocytic tumour (LOT) has recently been introduced as a potential distinct entity.MethodsAt the Indiana University department of pathology, primary renal epithelial neoplasms between 2005 and 2020 were searched after appropriate institutional review board permissions.ResultsTwenty-three cases (male/female ratio 14/9) with a median age of 66 (23–84 years) were identified. The majority of patients underwent partial nephrectomy (15/23, 65%), with a median tumour size of 4.0 cm (2.2–10.5 cm). Only one case had infiltration beyond the kidney (perinephric fat). Solid/diffuse proliferation of tightly packed oncocytic tumour cells and occasional tubule formations, with an abrupt edematous change in the stroma with loosely connected small clusters of tumour cells. Along with diffuse CK7 expression with lack of CD117 in all cases, vimentin was positive in 8/23 cases (35%, 5 focal). CD10 was expressed in 6/13 (46%, 4 focal). Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase (AMACR) was positive in 5/8 (63%) cases. Focal but intense cytoplasmic colloidal iron stain was present in 3/20 (15%) cases. Luminal or cytoplasmic/perinuclear precipitation was observed in 8/20 (40%) cases. Succinate Dehydrogenase B (SDHB) was performed in 6 cases, with all retained expression.ConclusionsLOT is a clinically indolent and potentially benign entity with distinguishable morphology and immunohistochemical profile that can be performed and be easily interpreted in most of surgical pathology settings. Additional studies with larger cohorts, comprehensive molecular evaluation and longer follow-up are needed to definitively recognise these tumours as a separate entity and to further address the possibility of active surveillance options in eligible patients.

TFE3-fusion associated renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) accounts for up to 5% adults and 40% of childhood RCC. Their comprehensive immunohistochemical (IHC) profile in correlation to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and their role in the diagnostic approach are not well documented because of lacking published data. FISH confirmed TFE3-RCC between years 2010 and 2020 were identified from institutional electronic database and retrospectively reviewed. Eighty-five TFE3-RCC were identified. Seventy-six of 85 (89.4%) TFE3-RCC cases had positive TFE3 expression, with diffuse and strong/moderate TFE3 expression in 45 (54.2%). Three (3.5%) TFE3-RCC had negative TFE3 expression whereas 6 (7%) cases had equivocal TFE3 expression. On the other hand, positive TFE3-IHC expression was observed in 17/29 (58.6%) TFE3-FISH negative RCC cases, although only 8 (27.5%) had diffuse and moderate/strong TFE3 expression. Diffuse and strong TFE3-IHC expression was statistically significant in predicting TFE3-FISH positivity (P<0.0001) regardless of morphologic features. After univariate and multivariate analyses, TFE3-IHC was the only parameter with significant predictive value for detecting positive TFE3-FISH (P<0.0001). On univariate analysis, sex, classic morphology, age, negative AE1/AE3 or cytokeratin 7 were not predictive of TFE3-FISH positivity. Diffuse and strong nuclear TFE3-IHC expression is significantly associated with TFE3-FISH positivity and can be used as a surrogate marker to confirm translocation associated cases. TFE3-rearranged RCCs show variable histomorphologic features and TFE3-FISH should be performed in cases presenting at a younger age or, regardless of the age, tumors with unusual morphology. Despite previous reports, negative pancytokeratin and positive cathepsin K expression may not be reliable markers for TFE3-RCC.

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.

No abstract