Identification of a novel susceptibility locus at 13q34 and refinement of the 20p12.2 region as a multi-signal locus associated with bladder cancer risk in individuals of european ancestry

Candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 15 independent genomic regions associated with bladder cancer risk. In search for additional susceptibility variants, we followed up on four promising single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that had not achieved genome-wide significance in 6911 cases and 11 814 controls (rs6104690, rs4510656, rs5003154 and rs4907479, P < 1 7 10(-6)), using additional data from existing GWAS datasets and targeted genotyping for studies that did not have GWAS data. In a combined analysis, which included data on up to 15 058 cases and 286 270 controls, two SNPs achieved genome-wide statistical significance: rs6104690 in a gene desert at 20p12.2 (P = 2.19 7 10(-11)) and rs4907479 within the MCF2L gene at 13q34 (P = 3.3 7 10(-10)). Imputation and fine-mapping analyses were performed in these two regions for a subset of 5551 bladder cancer cases and 10 242 controls. Analyses at the 13q34 region suggest a single signal marked by rs4907479. In contrast, we detected two signals in the 20p12.2 region-the first signal is marked by rs6104690, and the second signal is marked by two moderately correlated SNPs (r(2) = 0.53), rs6108803 and the previously reported rs62185668. The second 20p12.2 signal is more strongly associated with the risk of muscle-invasive (T2-T4 stage) compared with non-muscle-invasive (Ta, T1 stage) bladder cancer (case-case P 64 0.02 for both rs62185668 and rs6108803). Functional analyses are needed to explore the biological mechanisms underlying these novel genetic associations with risk for bladder cancer

High‐grade oncocytic tumour (HOT) of kidney in a patient with tuberous sclerosis complex

High-grade oncocytic tumor (HOT) was recently proposed as a novel renal entity that is currently not included in the WHO classification. The first published series by He et al included 14 tumors, collected from multiple institutional files. Recently, Chen et al reported another series of 7 morphologically very similar tumors that they designated sporadic renal cell carcinomas with eosinophilic and vacuolated cytoplasm . Using Next-generation sequencing they identified somatic inactivating mutations of TSC2 in 3 of 5 tumors tested or activating mutations of MTOR (in 2 of 5 tumors tested). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Clear cell-papillary renal cell carcinoma of the kidney not associated with end-stage renal disease: Clinicopathologic correlation with expanded immunophenotypic and molecular characterization of a large cohort with emphasis on relationship with renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor

Clear cell-papillary renal cell carcinoma (CC-Pap RCC) is a recently described renal tumor initially reported in the setting of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). It has unique morphologic and immunohistochemical features that differentiate it from the more common clear cell RCC and papillary RCC. Recently, these tumors have also been described in a sporadic setting. We studied 64 cases of CC-Pap RCC not associated with ESRD (57 CC-Pap RCCs and 7 cases with features of renal angiomyoadenomatous tumors [RAT] including 5 initially diagnosed as such). The morphologic features of all cases and the immunohistochemical profile of 59 cases were studied along with the clinical and molecular features of 30 and 12 cases, respectively. All the tumors were well circumscribed with a mean tumor size of 2.6 cm and showed a wide array of architectural patterns, usually mixed, including tubular (77%), papillary (62%), tubulocystic (52%), and compact nested (21%). Seventy-three percent of the cases showed areas in which the tumor nuclei had a distinct orientation away from the basement membrane. Ninety-two percent of the cases had a low Fuhrman nuclear grade (nuclear grade 2%-86%, and nuclear grade 1%-6%); however, 8% cases showed foci of Fuhrman nuclear grade 3. In 4 cases, epithelial tumor comprised 95% of the tumor was cystic or hyalinized. The stroma varied from being minimal to occasionally prominent myxoid to hyalinized and rarely with organized amianthoid fibers or well-defined smooth muscle bundles. Pathologic stage was reliably assigned in 60 cases, of which 93.3% (56 cases) were pT1, 3.3% (2 cases) were pT2, and 3.3% (2 cases) were pT3a with extension into the perinephric fat. One case had coagulative necrosis; sarcomatoid change and vascular invasion was not identified. The tumors showed a fairly typical immunoprofile characterized by positivity for CK7 (100%), HMCK (96%), CAIX (94%), and vimentin (100%) with negativity for AMACR, RCC, and TFE3; CD10 was positive in 24%. None of the cases tested showed recurrent chromosomal imbalances by virtual karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or 3p loss of heterozygosity analysis. VHL gene mutations were, however, noted in 3 cases (2 in exon 1 and 1 in exon 3). Clinical follow-up information was available in 47% of the patients, with a mean and median follow-up of 47 and 37 months, respectively (range, 18 to 108 mo). One case occurred in the setting of VHL syndrome and multiple benign cysts. None of the cases showed local recurrence, metastasis, or death due to disease. Morphology, immunophenotype, and molecular studies did not vary between typical cases, those with prominent smooth muscle (so-called RAT), and historically published data on cases occurring in ESRD. Our analysis confirms that CC-Pap RCC is a unique subtype of adult renal epithelial neoplasia in which tumors are frequently small, are of low nuclear grade and pathologic stage, and have extremely favorable short to intermediate range prognosis. Tumors occurring sporadically, with prominent smooth muscle stroma (so-called RAT), and occurring in ESRD are in the spectrum of the same category of tumors

The European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence: A Novel Proposal from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting

BACKGROUND: High-quality management of prostate cancer is needed in the fields of clinics, research, and education. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to develop the concept of "European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence" (EPCCE), with the specific aim of identifying European centres characterised by high-quality cancer care, research, and education. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A task force of experts aimed at identifying the general criteria to define the EPCCE. Discussion took place in conference calls and by e-mail from March 2017 to November 2017, and the final consensus meeting named "European Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting" was held in Barcelona on November 16, 2017. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The required criteria were grouped into three main steps: (1) clinics, (2) research, and (3) education. A quality control approach for the three steps was defined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The definition of EPCCE consisted of the following steps: (1) clinical step-five items were identified and classified as core team, associated services, multidisciplinary approach, diagnostic pathway, and therapeutic pathway; (2) research step-internal monitoring of outcomes was required; clinical data had to be collected through a prespecified database, clinical outcomes had to be periodically assessed, and prospective trials had to be conducted; (3) educational step-it consists of structured fellowship programmes of 1yr, including 6mo of research and 6mo of clinics; and (4) quality assurance and quality control procedures, related to the quality assessment of the previous three steps. A limitation of this project was that the definition of standards and items was mainly based on a consensus among experts rather than being an evidence-based process. CONCLUSIONS: The EAU Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting defined the criteria for the identification of the EPCCE in the fields of clinics, research, and education. The inclusion of a quality control approach represents the novelty that supports the excellence of these centres. PATIENT SUMMARY: A task force of experts defined the criteria for the identification of European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence, in order to certify the high-quality centres for prostate cancer management.status: publishe

The European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence:A Novel Proposal from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting

Background: High-quality management of prostate cancer is needed in the fields of clinics, research, and education. Objective: The objective of this project was to develop the concept of \u201cEuropean Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence\u201d (EPCCE), with the specific aim of identifying European centres characterised by high-quality cancer care, research, and education. Design, setting, and participants: A task force of experts aimed at identifying the general criteria to define the EPCCE. Discussion took place in conference calls and by e-mail from March 2017 to November 2017, and the final consensus meeting named \u201cEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting\u201d was held in Barcelona on November 16, 2017. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The required criteria were grouped into three main steps: (1) clinics, (2) research, and (3) education. A quality control approach for the three steps was defined. Results and limitations: The definition of EPCCE consisted of the following steps: (1) clinical step\u2014five items were identified and classified as core team, associated services, multidisciplinary approach, diagnostic pathway, and therapeutic pathway; (2) research step\u2014internal monitoring of outcomes was required; clinical data had to be collected through a prespecified database, clinical outcomes had to be periodically assessed, and prospective trials had to be conducted; (3) educational step\u2014it consists of structured fellowship programmes of 1 yr, including 6 mo of research and 6 mo of clinics; and (4) quality assurance and quality control procedures, related to the quality assessment of the previous three steps. A limitation of this project was that the definition of standards and items was mainly based on a consensus among experts rather than being an evidence-based process. Conclusions: The EAU Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting defined the criteria for the identification of the EPCCE in the fields of clinics, research, and education. The inclusion of a quality control approach represents the novelty that supports the excellence of these centres. Patient summary: A task force of experts defined the criteria for the identification of European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence, in order to certify the high-quality centres for prostate cancer management. The European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting defined the criteria for the identification of European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence in the field of clinics, research, and education. The inclusion of a quality control approach represents the novelty that supports the excellence of these centres

High-Grade Oncocytic Renal Tumor : Morphologic, Immunohistochemical, and Molecular Genetic Study of 14 Cases

The spectrum of the renal oncocytic tumors has been expanded in recent years to include several novel and emerging entities. We describe a cohort of novel, hitherto unrecognized and morphologically distinct high-grade oncocytic tumors (HOT), currently diagnosed as unclassified in the WHO classification. We identified 14 HOT by searching multiple institutional archives. Morphologic, immunohistochemical (IHC), molecular genetic, and molecular karyotyping studies were performed to investigate these tumors. The patients included 3 men and 11 women, with age range from 25 to 73 years (median 50, mean 49 years). Tumor size ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 cm in the greatest dimension (median 3, mean 3.4 cm). The tumors were all pT1 stage. Microscopically, they showed nested to solid growth, and focal tubulocystic architecture. The neoplastic cells were uniform with voluminous oncocytic cytoplasm. Prominent intracytoplasmic vacuoles were frequently seen, but no irregular (raisinoid) nuclei or perinuclear halos were present. All tumors demonstrated prominent nucleoli (WHO/ISUP grade 3 equivalent). Nine of 14 cases were positive for CD117 and cytokeratin (CK) 7 was either negative or only focally positive in of 6/14 cases. All tumors were positive for AE1-AE3, CK18, PAX 8, antimitochondrial antigen, and SDHB. Cathepsin K was positive in 13/14 cases and CD10 was positive in 12/13 cases. All cases were negative for TFE3, HMB45, Melan-A. No TFEB and TFE3 genes rearrangement was found in analyzable cases. By array CGH, complete chromosomal losses or gains were not found in any of the cases, and 3/9 cases showed absence of any abnormalities. Chromosomal losses were detected on chromosome 19 (4/9), 3 with losses of the short arm (p) and 1 with losses of both arms (p and q). Loss of chromosome 1 was found in 3/9 cases; gain of 5q was found in 1/9 cases. On molecular karyotyping, 3/3 evaluated cases showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on 16p11.2-11.1 and 2/3 cases showed LOH at 7q31.31. Copy number (CN) losses were found at 7q11.21 (3/3), Xp11.21 (3/3), Xp11.22-11.21 (3/3), and Xq24-25 (2/3). CN gains were found at 13q34 (2/3). Ten patients with available follow up information were alive and without disease progression, after a mean follow-up of 28 months (1 to 112 months). HOT is a tumor with unique morphology and its IHC profile appears mostly consistent. HOT should be considered as an emerging renal entity because it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for other recognized eosinophilic renal tumors, such as oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFE3 and TFEB RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC