Biomarkers in renal cancer

Treatment options for primary and metastatic renal cancer are increasing. Accurate data from the pathological examination of renal cancer specimens aid clinicians in stratifying patients for surveillance and adjuvant therapies. This review focuses on biomarkers in diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of the biologic behavior of renal tumors which should be recorded in pathology reports and which are under investigation. Special emphasis is given to the use of immunohistochemical markers in differential diagnosis of various renal tumor subtypes. The relevance of cytogenetic and molecular findings is also discussed. The review includes the 2012 International Society for Urological Pathology Consensus conference recommendations

The quality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in the U.S.

BACKGROUND. The authors assessed adherence with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) radical prostatectomy (RP) practice protocol in a national sample of men who underwent RP for early-stage prostate cancer. METHODS. Using the National Cancer Data Base, the authors identified a nationally representative sample of 1240 men (unweighted) who underwent RP. For each patient, local cancer registrars performed an explicit medical record review to assess patient-level compliance with surgical pathology report documentation of 7 morphologic criteria (ie, quality indicators). Applying the CAP prognostic factor classification framework, composite measures and all-or-none measures of quality indicator compliance were calculated for the following analytic categories: 1) a strict subset of CAP category I prognostic factors (3 indicators), 2) a broad subset of CAP category I factors (6 indicators), and 3) the full set of 7 indicators. RESULTS. Among a weighted sample of 24,420 patients who underwent RP, compliance with documentation of the CAP category I factors varied from 54% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 50–58%) for pathologic tumor, lymph node, metastases classification (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system) to 97% (95% CI, 96–99%) for Gleason score. In composite, RP pathology reports contained 83% (95% CI, 81–84%), 85% (95% CI, 84–87%), and 79% (95% CI, 78–80%) of the recommended data elements measured by the strict CAP category I subset, the broad CAP category I subset, and the full set of 7 indicators, respectively. In contrast to the generally higher composite scores, only 52% (95% CI, 48–56%) and 41% (95% CI, 37–45%) of men who underwent RP had complete documentation in their pathology reports for the strict and broad CAP category I subsets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS. RP surgical pathology reports contained most of the recommended data elements; however, the frequent absence of pathologic stage provides an opportunity for quality improvement. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56046/1/22698_ftp.pd

The 2022 World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours.

The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urogenital tumours (WHO "Blue Book"), published in 2022, contains significant revisions. This review summarises the most relevant changes for renal, penile, and testicular tumours. In keeping with other volumes in the fifth edition series, the WHO classification of urogenital tumours follows a hierarchical classification and lists tumours by site, category, family, and type. The section "essential and desirable diagnostic criteria" included in the WHO fifth edition represents morphologic diagnostic criteria, combined with immunohistochemistry and relevant molecular tests. The global introduction of massive parallel sequencing will result in a diagnostic shift from morphology to molecular analyses. Therefore, a molecular-driven renal tumour classification has been introduced, taking recent discoveries in renal tumour genomics into account. Such novel molecularly defined epithelial renal tumours include SMARCB1-deficient medullary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFEB-altered RCC, Alk-rearranged RCC, and ELOC-mutated RCC. Eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC is a novel morphologically defined RCC entity. The diverse morphologic patterns of penile squamous cell carcinomas are grouped as human papillomavirus (HPV) associated and HPV independent, and there is an attempt to simplify the morphologic classification. A new chapter with tumours of the scrotum has been introduced. The main nomenclature of testicular tumours is retained, including the use of the term "germ cell neoplasia in situ" (GCNIS) for the preneoplastic lesion of most germ cell tumours and division from those not derived from GCNIS. Nomenclature changes include replacement of the term "primitive neuroectodermal tumour" by "embryonic neuroectodermal tumour" to separate these tumours clearly from Ewing sarcoma. The term "carcinoid" has been changed to "neuroendocrine tumour", with most examples in the testis now classified as "prepubertal type testicular neuroendocrine tumour"

WHO Classification of Tumours fifth edition: evolving issues in the classification, diagnosis, and prognostication of prostate cancer

The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems encompasses several updates to the classification and diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as well as incorporating advancements in the assessment of its prognosis, including recent grading modifications. Some of the salient aspects include: (1) recognition that prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma is not synonymous with a pattern of ductal carcinoma, but better classified as a subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma; (2) a specific section on treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma in view of the tight correlation between androgen deprivation therapy and the development of prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine morphology, and the emerging data on lineage plasticity; (3) a terminology change of basal cell carcinoma to "adenoid cystic (basal cell) cell carcinoma" given the presence of an underlying MYB::NFIB gene fusion in many cases; (4) discussion of the current issues in the grading of acinar adenocarcinoma and the prognostic significance of cribriform growth patterns; and (5) more detailed coverage of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) reflecting our increased knowledge of this entity, while recommending the descriptive term atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) for lesions falling short of IDC-P but containing more atypia than typically seen in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Lesions previously regarded as cribriform patterns of HGPIN are now included in the AIP category. This review discusses these developments, summarising the existing literature, as well as the emerging morphological and molecular data that underpins the classification and prognostication of prostatic carcinoma. Keywords: WHO Classification; pathology; prostate carcinoma

Update for the practicing pathologist: The International Consultation On Urologic Disease-European association of urology consultation on bladder cancer

The International Consultations on Urological Diseases are international consensus meetings, supported by the World Health Organization and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, which have occurred since 1981. Each consultation has the goal of convening experts to review data and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve practice. In 2012, the selected subject was bladder cancer, a disease which remains a major public health problem with little improvement in many years. The proceedings of the 2nd International Consultation on Bladder Cancer, which included a 'Pathology of Bladder Cancer Work Group,' have recently been published; herein, we provide a summary of developments and consensus relevant to the practicing pathologist. Although the published proceedings have tackled a comprehensive set of issues regarding the pathology of bladder cancer, this update summarizes the recommendations regarding selected issues for the practicing pathologist. These include guidelines for classification and grading of urothelial neoplasia, with particular emphasis on the approach to inverted lesions, the handling of incipient papillary lesions frequently seen during surveillance of bladder cancer patients, descriptions of newer variants, and terminology for urine cytology reporting

Gleason Grade 4 Prostate Adenocarcinoma Patterns: An Inter-observer Agreement Study among Genitourinary Pathologists

Aims To assess the interobserver reproducibility of individual Gleason grade 4 growth patterns. Methods and results Twenty-three genitourinary pathologists participated in the evaluation of 60 selected high-magnification photographs. The selection included 10 cases of Gleason grade 3, 40 of Gleason grade 4 (10 per growth pattern), and 10 of Gleason grade 5. Participants were asked to select a single predominant Gleason grade per case (3, 4, or 5), and to indicate the predominant Gleason grade 4 growth pattern, if present. ‘Consensus’ was defined as at least 80% agreement, and ‘favoured’ as 60–80% agreement. Consensus on Gleason grading was reached in 47 of 60 (78%) cases, 35 of which were assigned to grade 4. In the 13 non-consensus cases, ill-formed (6/13, 46%) and fused (7/13, 54%) patterns were involved in the disagreement. Among the 20 cases where at least one pathologist assigned the ill-formed growth pattern, none (0%, 0/20) reached consensus. Consensus for fused, cribriform and glomeruloid glands was reached in 2%, 23% and 38% of cases, respectively. In nine of 35 (26%) consensus Gleason grade 4 cases, participants disagreed on the growth pattern. Six of these were characterized by large epithelial proliferations with delicate intervening fibrovascular cores, which were alternatively given the designation fused or cribriform growth pattern (‘complex fused’). Conclusions Consensus on Gleason grade 4 growth pattern was predominantly reached on cribriform and glomeruloid patterns, but rarely on ill-formed and fused glands. The complex fused glands seem to constitute a borderline pattern of unknown prognostic significance on which a consensus could not be reached

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

Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) 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 17/26 invitees. Histologically, >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: CK7 (94%), KIT (71%), vimentin (65%), colloidal iron (59%), CD10 (53%), and AMACR (41%). Rare CK7-positive cells (≤5%) was regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe RCC 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

Utility of Pathology Imagebase for Standardization of Prostate Cancer Grading

Aims: Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading. Methods and results: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two-thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members are able to access a limited number of cases. Conclusions: It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified