Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists

Sean R. Williamson, Ramya Gadde, Kiril Trpkov, Michelle S. Hirsch, John R. Srigley, Victor E. Reuter, Liang Cheng, L. Priya Kunju, Ravi Barod, Craig G. Rogers, Brett Delahunt, Ondrej Hes, John Eble, Ming Zhou, Jesse K. McKenney, Guido Martignoni, Stewart Fleming, David Grignon, Holger Moch, Nilesh S. Gupta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have been long recognized as distinct tumors; however, it remains unknown if uniform diagnostic criteria are used to distinguish these tumor types in practice. A survey was distributed to urologic pathologists regarding oncocytic tumors. Responses were received from 17 of 26 invitees. Histologically, more than 1 mitotic figure was regarded as most worrisome (n = 10) or incompatible (n = 6) with oncocytoma diagnosis. Interpretation of focal nuclear wrinkling, focal perinuclear clearing, and multinucleation depended on extent and did not necessarily exclude oncocytoma if minor. Staining techniques most commonly used included the following: cytokeratin 7 (94%), KIT (71%), vimentin (65%), colloidal iron (59%), CD10 (53%), and AMACR (41%). Rare cytokeratin 7–positive cells (≤5%) were regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (65%). Less certainty was reported for chromosomal gain or a single loss. For tumors with mixed or inconclusive features, many participants use an intermediate diagnostic category (82%) that does not label the tumor as unequivocally benign or malignant, typically “oncocytic neoplasm” or “tumor” with comment. The term “hybrid tumor” was used variably in several scenarios. A slight majority (65%) report outright diagnosis of oncocytoma in needle biopsies. The morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics that define oncocytic renal tumors remain incompletely understood. Further studies correlating genetics, behavior, and histology are needed to define which tumors truly warrant classification as carcinomas for patient counseling and follow-up strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-156
Number of pages8
JournalHuman Pathology
Volume63
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Kidney Neoplasms
Oxyphilic Adenoma
Neoplasms
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Surveys and Questionnaires
Pathologists
Keratin-7
Needle Biopsy
Vimentin
Keratins
Counseling
Histology
Iron
Staining and Labeling
Carcinoma
Kidney

Keywords

  • Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma
  • Diagnostic criteria
  • Hybrid tumor
  • Immunohistochemistry
  • Oncocytoma
  • Tumor classification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Williamson, S. R., Gadde, R., Trpkov, K., Hirsch, M. S., Srigley, J. R., Reuter, V. E., ... Gupta, N. S. (2017). Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists. Human Pathology, 63, 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004

Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms : a survey of urologic pathologists. / Williamson, Sean R.; Gadde, Ramya; Trpkov, Kiril; Hirsch, Michelle S.; Srigley, John R.; Reuter, Victor E.; Cheng, Liang; Kunju, L. Priya; Barod, Ravi; Rogers, Craig G.; Delahunt, Brett; Hes, Ondrej; Eble, John; Zhou, Ming; McKenney, Jesse K.; Martignoni, Guido; Fleming, Stewart; Grignon, David; Moch, Holger; Gupta, Nilesh S.

In: Human Pathology, Vol. 63, 01.05.2017, p. 149-156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Williamson, SR, Gadde, R, Trpkov, K, Hirsch, MS, Srigley, JR, Reuter, VE, Cheng, L, Kunju, LP, Barod, R, Rogers, CG, Delahunt, B, Hes, O, Eble, J, Zhou, M, McKenney, JK, Martignoni, G, Fleming, S, Grignon, D, Moch, H & Gupta, NS 2017, 'Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists', Human Pathology, vol. 63, pp. 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004
Williamson SR, Gadde R, Trpkov K, Hirsch MS, Srigley JR, Reuter VE et al. Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists. Human Pathology. 2017 May 1;63:149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004
Williamson, Sean R. ; Gadde, Ramya ; Trpkov, Kiril ; Hirsch, Michelle S. ; Srigley, John R. ; Reuter, Victor E. ; Cheng, Liang ; Kunju, L. Priya ; Barod, Ravi ; Rogers, Craig G. ; Delahunt, Brett ; Hes, Ondrej ; Eble, John ; Zhou, Ming ; McKenney, Jesse K. ; Martignoni, Guido ; Fleming, Stewart ; Grignon, David ; Moch, Holger ; Gupta, Nilesh S. / Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms : a survey of urologic pathologists. In: Human Pathology. 2017 ; Vol. 63. pp. 149-156.
@article{afa3cfa5aeb0471799bb11a943f6fa31,
title = "Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists",
abstract = "Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have been long recognized as distinct tumors; however, it remains unknown if uniform diagnostic criteria are used to distinguish these tumor types in practice. A survey was distributed to urologic pathologists regarding oncocytic tumors. Responses were received from 17 of 26 invitees. Histologically, more than 1 mitotic figure was regarded as most worrisome (n = 10) or incompatible (n = 6) with oncocytoma diagnosis. Interpretation of focal nuclear wrinkling, focal perinuclear clearing, and multinucleation depended on extent and did not necessarily exclude oncocytoma if minor. Staining techniques most commonly used included the following: cytokeratin 7 (94{\%}), KIT (71{\%}), vimentin (65{\%}), colloidal iron (59{\%}), CD10 (53{\%}), and AMACR (41{\%}). Rare cytokeratin 7–positive cells (≤5{\%}) were regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (65{\%}). Less certainty was reported for chromosomal gain or a single loss. For tumors with mixed or inconclusive features, many participants use an intermediate diagnostic category (82{\%}) that does not label the tumor as unequivocally benign or malignant, typically “oncocytic neoplasm” or “tumor” with comment. The term “hybrid tumor” was used variably in several scenarios. A slight majority (65{\%}) report outright diagnosis of oncocytoma in needle biopsies. The morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics that define oncocytic renal tumors remain incompletely understood. Further studies correlating genetics, behavior, and histology are needed to define which tumors truly warrant classification as carcinomas for patient counseling and follow-up strategies.",
keywords = "Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, Diagnostic criteria, Hybrid tumor, Immunohistochemistry, Oncocytoma, Tumor classification",
author = "Williamson, {Sean R.} and Ramya Gadde and Kiril Trpkov and Hirsch, {Michelle S.} and Srigley, {John R.} and Reuter, {Victor E.} and Liang Cheng and Kunju, {L. Priya} and Ravi Barod and Rogers, {Craig G.} and Brett Delahunt and Ondrej Hes and John Eble and Ming Zhou and McKenney, {Jesse K.} and Guido Martignoni and Stewart Fleming and David Grignon and Holger Moch and Gupta, {Nilesh S.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "63",
pages = "149--156",
journal = "Human Pathology",
issn = "0046-8177",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic criteria for oncocytic renal neoplasms

T2 - a survey of urologic pathologists

AU - Williamson, Sean R.

AU - Gadde, Ramya

AU - Trpkov, Kiril

AU - Hirsch, Michelle S.

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Reuter, Victor E.

AU - Cheng, Liang

AU - Kunju, L. Priya

AU - Barod, Ravi

AU - Rogers, Craig G.

AU - Delahunt, Brett

AU - Hes, Ondrej

AU - Eble, John

AU - Zhou, Ming

AU - McKenney, Jesse K.

AU - Martignoni, Guido

AU - Fleming, Stewart

AU - Grignon, David

AU - Moch, Holger

AU - Gupta, Nilesh S.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have been long recognized as distinct tumors; however, it remains unknown if uniform diagnostic criteria are used to distinguish these tumor types in practice. A survey was distributed to urologic pathologists regarding oncocytic tumors. Responses were received from 17 of 26 invitees. Histologically, more than 1 mitotic figure was regarded as most worrisome (n = 10) or incompatible (n = 6) with oncocytoma diagnosis. Interpretation of focal nuclear wrinkling, focal perinuclear clearing, and multinucleation depended on extent and did not necessarily exclude oncocytoma if minor. Staining techniques most commonly used included the following: cytokeratin 7 (94%), KIT (71%), vimentin (65%), colloidal iron (59%), CD10 (53%), and AMACR (41%). Rare cytokeratin 7–positive cells (≤5%) were regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (65%). Less certainty was reported for chromosomal gain or a single loss. For tumors with mixed or inconclusive features, many participants use an intermediate diagnostic category (82%) that does not label the tumor as unequivocally benign or malignant, typically “oncocytic neoplasm” or “tumor” with comment. The term “hybrid tumor” was used variably in several scenarios. A slight majority (65%) report outright diagnosis of oncocytoma in needle biopsies. The morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics that define oncocytic renal tumors remain incompletely understood. Further studies correlating genetics, behavior, and histology are needed to define which tumors truly warrant classification as carcinomas for patient counseling and follow-up strategies.

AB - Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have been long recognized as distinct tumors; however, it remains unknown if uniform diagnostic criteria are used to distinguish these tumor types in practice. A survey was distributed to urologic pathologists regarding oncocytic tumors. Responses were received from 17 of 26 invitees. Histologically, more than 1 mitotic figure was regarded as most worrisome (n = 10) or incompatible (n = 6) with oncocytoma diagnosis. Interpretation of focal nuclear wrinkling, focal perinuclear clearing, and multinucleation depended on extent and did not necessarily exclude oncocytoma if minor. Staining techniques most commonly used included the following: cytokeratin 7 (94%), KIT (71%), vimentin (65%), colloidal iron (59%), CD10 (53%), and AMACR (41%). Rare cytokeratin 7–positive cells (≤5%) were regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (65%). Less certainty was reported for chromosomal gain or a single loss. For tumors with mixed or inconclusive features, many participants use an intermediate diagnostic category (82%) that does not label the tumor as unequivocally benign or malignant, typically “oncocytic neoplasm” or “tumor” with comment. The term “hybrid tumor” was used variably in several scenarios. A slight majority (65%) report outright diagnosis of oncocytoma in needle biopsies. The morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics that define oncocytic renal tumors remain incompletely understood. Further studies correlating genetics, behavior, and histology are needed to define which tumors truly warrant classification as carcinomas for patient counseling and follow-up strategies.

KW - Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

KW - Diagnostic criteria

KW - Hybrid tumor

KW - Immunohistochemistry

KW - Oncocytoma

KW - Tumor classification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018627722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018627722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004

DO - 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.03.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 28315424

AN - SCOPUS:85018627722

VL - 63

SP - 149

EP - 156

JO - Human Pathology

JF - Human Pathology

SN - 0046-8177

ER -