[Renal eosinophilic vacuolated tumor: a clinicopathological analysis of seven cases]

Y Wang,J Zhuang,Y J Li,X B Ji,Y X Li,Y J Zhang,W J Yu,D C Zhong,W Zhang,Y X Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20240201-00074

2024-09-08

Abstract:Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features and differential diagnosis of eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT). Methods: Seven cases of EVT with characteristic morphology and unequivocal diagnosis from the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University (6 cases), Qingdao, China and the 971 Hospital of PLA Navy (1 case), Qingdao, China between January 2010 and December 2021 were subject to morphological and immunohistochemical analyses. Additionally, whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed in two cases. Twenty-two cases of renal oncocytoma (RO) and 17 cases of eosinophilic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (eChRCC) diagnosed at the same time were used as controls. Results: Four males and three females with a mean age of 42 years (range: 29-61 years) were included in the study. The tumors were nodular and well-circumscribed, with sizes ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 cm. On cross-section, they appeared gray-red or gray-white, solid, and soft. Tumor cells were arranged in nests, solid sheets, and acinar or small vesicular structures. These cells exhibited eosinophilic cytoplasm with large, prominent clear vacuoles and round nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Perinuclear halos were focally present in four cases, while small tumor cells with sparse cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei were seen in one case. No necrosis or mitosis was noted. Edematous stroma was detected in three cases. All tumors were positive for CD117 and Cathepsin K, but negative for vimentin and CK7. CK20 was positive in scattered individual cells, and Ki-67 positivity ranged from 1% to 4%. Point mutations in MTOR were identified in both patients who were subject to the molecular analysis. Statistical differences in the expression of Cathepsin K, CD10, S-100A1, and Cyclin D1 between EVT and RO (P<0.05) were significant, so were the differences in the expression of Cathepsin K, CD10, CK7 and claudin 7 between EVT and eChRCC (P<0.001). Seven patients were followed up for 4 to 96 months (mean, 50 months), with no recurrences or metastases. Conclusions: EVT is a rare renal tumor that shares morphological and immunophenotypic features with RO and eChRCC, and it is closely linked to the TSC/MTOR pathway. The presence of large prominent transparent vacuoles in eosinophilic cytoplasm along with conspicuous nucleoli is its key morphological characteristics. The use of combined immunohistochemical stains greatly aids in its diagnosis. Typically, the tumor exhibits indolent biological behaviors with a favorable prognosis.