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.

Context.— Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. Objective.— To update grading recommendations. Data Sources.— Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.— Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace “tertiary grade pattern” in radical prostatectomy (RP) with “minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),” and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) “atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)” is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

Osteoclast-like giant-cell neoplasms of the urinary tract are rare. They are composed of ovoid or spindle-shaped mononuclear cells with evenly spaced osteoclast-like giant cells. Terminology, histogenesis, and biologic behavior of these tumors remain controversial. Six cases of osteoclast-like giant-cell neoplasms of the urinary tract were identified from the consultation files of two of the authors. Patients were all male and elderly (range 65-82), with the exception of one 39-year-old male. In all, 3/6 tumors developed in the bladder and 3/6 in the renal pelvis. Size ranged from 5 to 11 cm. One bladder and three renal pelvis tumors were high stage (pT3) at time of presentation. Adjacent to the osteoclast-like giant-cell neoplasm in the same specimen, all patients had urothelial carcinoma in situ and/or high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Multinucleated cells had identical morphological and immunohistochemical properties of osteoclasts; positive for CD-68, LCA, CD51 and CD54, and negative for cytokeratins and EMA. Varying percentages of mononuclear cells expressed a-smooth muscle actin (4/6), desmin (1/6), S-100 (4/6), LCA (2/6) and CD68 (6/6). However, mononuclear cells were also positive for epithelial markers in 4/6 tumors (cytokeratins AE-1/AE-3, Cam 5.2, CK7 and/or EMA). p53 stained mononuclear tumor cells in three cases, paralleling the staining on the accompanying urothelial carcinoma. Ki-67 stained mononuclear tumor cells, but not osteoclast-like giant cells. Follow-up data were available in five cases. One patient developed recurrence of noninvasive urothelial carcinoma and is still alive. Four patients were dead due to disease within 15 months, three with distant metastases. The intimate association of these tumors with urothelial carcinoma along with their immunohistochemical profile supports an epithelial origin for the mononuclear cells and non-neoplastic reactive histiocytic lineage for the osteoclast-like giant cells.

No abstract

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.

Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome (INS) is a genetically heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and edema. Because it typically results in end-stage kidney disease, the steroid-resistant subtype (SRNS) of INS is especially important when it occurs in children. The present study included 29 affected and 22 normal individuals from 17 SRNS families; genome-wide analysis was performed with Affymetrix 250K SNP arrays followed by homozygosity mapping. A large homozygous stretch on chromosomal region 12p12 was identified in one consanguineous family with two affected siblings. Direct sequencing of protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type O (PTPRO; also known as glomerular epithelial protein-1 [GLEPP1]) showed homozygous c.2627+1G>T donor splice-site mutation. This mutation causes skipping of the evolutionarily conserved exon 16 (p.Glu854_Trp876del) at the RNA level. Immunohistochemistry with GLEPP1 antibody showed a similar staining pattern in the podocytes of the diseased and control kidney tissues. We used a highly polymorphic intragenic DNA marker-D12S1303-to search for homozygosity in 120 Turkish and 13 non-Turkish individuals in the PodoNet registry. This analysis yielded 17 candidate families, and a distinct homozygous c.2745+1G>A donor splice-site mutation in PTPRO was further identified via DNA sequencing in a second Turkish family. This mutation causes skipping of exon 19, and this introduces a premature stop codon at the very beginning of exon 20 (p.Asn888Lysfs*3) and causes degradation of mRNA via nonsense-mediated decay. Immunohistochemical analysis showed complete absence of immunoreactive PTPRO. Ultrastructural alterations, such as diffuse foot process fusion and extensive microvillus transformation of podocytes, were observed via electron microscopy in both families. The present study introduces mutations in PTPRO as another cause of autosomal-recessive nephrotic syndrome.

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.