Diagnostic Approach In Tfe3-Rearranged Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional International Survey
Mahmut Akgul,Sean R Williamson,Dilek Ertoy,Pedram Argani,Sounak Gupta,Anna Caliò,Victor Reuter,Satish Tickoo,Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie,George J Netto,Ondrej Hes,Michelle S Hirsch,Brett Delahunt,Rohit Mehra,Stephanie Skala,Adeboye O Osunkoya,Lara Harik,Priya Rao,Ankur R Sangoi,Maya Nourieh,Debra L Zynger,Steven Cristopher Smith,Tipu Nazeer,Berrak Gumuskaya,Ibrahim Kulac,Francesca Khani,Maria S Tretiakova,Funda Vakar-Lopez,Guliz Barkan,Vincent Molinié,Virginie Verkarre,Qiu Rao,Lorand Kis,Angel Panizo,Ted Farzaneh,Martin J Magers,Joseph Sanfrancesco,Carmen Perrino,Dibson Gondim,Ronald Araneta,Jeffrey S So,Jae Y Ro,Matthew Wasco,Omar Hameed,Antonio Lopez-Beltran,Hemamali Samaratunga,Sara E Wobker,Jonathan Melamed,Liang Cheng,Muhammad T Idrees
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-207372
2021-01-01
Journal of Clinical Pathology
Abstract:Transcription factor E3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) has heterogenous morphologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features.131 pathologists with genitourinary expertise were invited in an online survey containing 23 questions assessing their experience on TFE3-RCC diagnostic work-up.Fifty (38%) participants completed the survey. 46 of 50 participants reported multiple patterns, most commonly papillary pattern (almost always 9/46, 19.5%; frequently 29/46, 63%). Large epithelioid cells with abundant cytoplasm were the most encountered cytologic feature, with either clear (almost always 10/50, 20%; frequently 34/50, 68%) or eosinophilic (almost always 4/49, 8%; frequently 28/49, 57%) cytology. Strong (3+) or diffuse (>75% of tumour cells) nuclear TFE3 IHC expression was considered diagnostic by 13/46 (28%) and 12/47 (26%) participants, respectively. Main TFE3 IHC issues were the low specificity (16/42, 38%), unreliable staining performance (15/42, 36%) and background staining (12/42, 29%). Most preferred IHC assays other than TFE3, cathepsin K and pancytokeratin were melan A (44/50, 88%), HMB45 (43/50, 86%), carbonic anhydrase IX (41/50, 82%) and CK7 (32/50, 64%). Cut-off for positive TFE3 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) was preferably 10% (9/50, 18%), although significant variation in cut-off values was present. 23/48 (48%) participants required TFE3 FISH testing to confirm TFE3-RCC regardless of the histomorphologic and IHC assessment. 28/50 (56%) participants would request additional molecular studies other than FISH assay in selected cases, whereas 3/50 participants use additional molecular cases in all cases when TFE3-RCC is in the differential.Optimal diagnostic approach on TFE3-RCC is impacted by IHC and/or FISH assay preferences as well as their conflicting interpretation methods.