Solid papillary renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic, morphologic, and immunohistochemical analysis of 10 cases and review of the literature

Ulamec, Monika; Skenderi, Faruk; Trpkov, Kiril; Krušlin, Božo; Vranić, Semir; Bulimbašić, Stela; Trivunić, Sandra; Montiel, Delia Pérez; Pecková, Květoslava; Pivovarčíková, Kristýna; Ondič, Ondřej; Daum, Ondřej; Rotterová, Pavla; Dušek, Martin; Hora, Milan; Michal, Michal; Hes, Ondřej

doi:10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2016.04.008

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5 In our opinion, the four cases with 'micronodular' morphology reported by Renshaw et al 5 show identical features to the tumours reported herein. The 'micronodules' described by Renshaw et al 5 are identical to the 'glomeruloid' morphology illustrated in the subsequent publications by Mantoan Padilha et al 6 and Tickoo et al, 8,9 the 'alveolo-squamoid' morphology reported by Petersson et al, 2 and the 'squamoid-alveolar' formations in the study by Hes et al 1 Focal 'glomeruloid formations' were also noted in four of 10 solid-papillary RCCs in the study by Ulamec et al 7 The use of variable descriptive terms, such as 'alveolo-squamoid' (or 'squamoid alveolar'), [1][2][3][4] 'glomeruloid', [6][7][8] 'solid-glomeruloid', 9 and 'micronodular', 5 is rather confusing and misleading. In the most recent study, by Troxell and Higgins, the name was simplified to 'biphasic papillary RCC' for the two cases found in allografts, clarifying that, in fact, all of these tumours belong to an identical subgroup.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…and Tickoo et al ., the ‘alveolo‐squamoid’ morphology reported by Petersson et al ., and the ‘squamoid‐alveolar’ formations in the study by Hes et al . Focal ‘glomeruloid formations’ were also noted in four of 10 solid‐papillary RCCs in the study by Ulamec et al …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this type of morphology has previously been documented in papillary RCC showing solid morphology, and was labelled ‘micronodular’ and ‘glomeruloid’ (or ‘solid‐glomeruloid’) . It has also been mentioned and illustrated as part of the morphological spectrum of papillary RCC in some monographs and textbooks, but without more specific detail being provided .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…[2][3][4] However, this type of morphology has previously been documented in papillary RCC showing solid morphology, and was labelled 'micronodular' and 'glomeruloid' (or 'solid-glomeruloid'). [5][6][7] It has also been mentioned and illustrated as part of the morphological spectrum of papillary RCC in some monographs and textbooks, but without more specific detail being provided. 8,9 The updated World Health Organisation classification of renal tumours also does not specifically mention this morphology in the description of papillary RCC.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biphasic papillary renal cell carcinoma is a rare morphological variant with frequent multifocality: a study of 28 cases

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To further characterise biphasic squamoid renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a recently proposed variant of papillary RCC. Methods and results We identified 28 tumours from multiple institutions. They typically showed two cell populations—larger cells with eosinophilic cytoplasm and higher‐grade nuclei, surrounded by smaller, amphophilic cells with scanty cytoplasm. The dual morphology was variable (median 72.5% of tumour, range 5–100%); emperipolesis was found in all cases. The male/female ratio was 2:1, and the median age was 55 years (range 39–86 years). The median tumour size was 20 mm (range 9–65 mm). Pathological stage pT1a was found in 21 cases, pT1b in three, and pT3a and pT3b in one each (two not available). Multifocality was found in 32%: multifocal biphasic RCC in one case, biphasic + papillary RCC in two cases, biphasic + clear cell RCC in three cases, biphasic + low‐grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis in one case, and biphasic + Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome in one case. Positive immunostains included: PAX8, cytokeratin (CK) 7, α‐methylacyl‐CoA racemase, epithelial membrane antigen, and vimentin. Cyclin D1 was expressed only in the larger cells. The Ki67 index was higher in the larger cells (median 5% versus ≤1%). Negative stains included: carbonic anhydrase 9, CD117, GATA‐3, WT1, CK5/6, and CK20; CD10 and 34βE12 were variably expressed. Gains of chromosomes 7 and 17 were found in two evaluated cases. Follow‐up was available for 23 patients (median 24 months, range 1–244 months): 19 were alive without disease, one was alive with recurrence, and one had died of disease (two had died of other causes). Conclusions Biphasic papillary RCC is a rare variant of papillary RCC, and is often multifocal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biphasic papillary renal cell carcinoma is a rare morphological variant with frequent multifocality: a study of 28 cases

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the basis of the morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular similarities, biphasic squamoid papillary RCC is considered to fall within the spectrum of papillary RCC, type 1, and may represent a distinct subtype of papillary RCC, type 1. In particular, solid papillary RCC also shows focal, large eosinophilic cells, forming so‐called glomeruloid (or micronodular) formations; this morphology is almost identical to the morphology seen in biphasic squamoid papillary RCC . Additionally, a substantial proportion of biphasic squamoid papillary RCCs show at least focal papillary morphology, as seen in papillary RCC, type 1.…”

Section: Biphasic Squamoid Papillary Rccmentioning

confidence: 86%

New and emerging renal entities: a perspective post‐WHO 2016 classification

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Renal tumours include a heterogeneous and diverse spectrum of neoplasms. Recent advances in this field have significantly improved our understanding of the morphological, immunohistochemical, molecular, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of renal tumours, which led to the new Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia and the new World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal cell tumours. This review aims to summarise the new information and evidence on several new and emerging/provisional renal entities, which were mostly generated after the recent classification of renal neoplasia. We include in this review the following new and emerging/provisional renal entities: succinate dehydrogenase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, thyroid‐like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement‐associated renal cell carcinoma, renal cell carcinomas with prominent smooth muscle stroma, fumarate hydratase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, biphasic squamoid papillary renal cell carcinoma, eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma, atrophic kidney‐like renal cell carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma with giant cells and emperipolesis, Warthin‐like papillary renal cell carcinoma, and low‐grade oncocytic renal tumour (CD117‐negative; cytokeratin 7‐positive). Some of these entities, such as succinate dehydrogenase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, have already been recognised as new entities in the WHO classification, and some have been recognised as provisional/emerging entities. However, we include in this review several additional entities that, on the basis of the published evidence, also warrant this designation. We hope that this review will ease the navigation through this complex and evolving field, and will inform and stimulate new studies and discussions.

show abstract

Role of renal mass biopsy for diagnosis and management: Review of current trends and future directions

Choy

Nayar

Lin

2023

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The frequency of detection of renal masses has increased over recent decades, causing a concurrent increase in early intervention by surgery. Growing recognition that this approach was contributing to overtreatment led to the broader use of preoperative renal mass biopsy (RMB) by core biopsy and/or fine‐needle aspiration. Because more options for management, such as active surveillance and personalized therapy, are becoming increasingly available, a diagnosis by RMB is becoming a valuable tool for risk stratification and clinical decision making. Guidelines from various professional organizations have outlined situations in which RMB should be used, and it has been shown to be safe and effective. Rapid on‐site evaluation (ROSE) using touch preparations of core biopsy or fine‐needle aspiration smears provides an immediate assessment of adequacy and appropriate triage. ROSE also ensures sufficient material to perform immunohistochemistry and molecular studies for more accurate characterization of renal masses and personalized treatment. The integral role of cytopathology laboratories in precision medicine can also be successfully used in optimizing the workup of RMB from ROSE to final diagnosis, prognostication, and personalized management of kidney tumors. Herein, the authors review their extensive experience working together with interventional radiology and urology colleagues to use core biopsy and ROSE at the time of RMB for diagnosis and management of these lesions.

show abstract

Solid papillary renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic, morphologic, and immunohistochemical analysis of 10 cases and review of the literature

Cited by 19 publications

References 34 publications

Biphasic papillary renal cell carcinoma is a rare morphological variant with frequent multifocality: a study of 28 cases

Biphasic papillary renal cell carcinoma is a rare morphological variant with frequent multifocality: a study of 28 cases

New and emerging renal entities: a perspective post‐WHO 2016 classification

Role of renal mass biopsy for diagnosis and management: Review of current trends and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About