Acceptance of emerging renal oncocytic neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
Sambit K. Mohanty, Anandi Lobo, Shilpy Jha, Ankur R. Sangoi, Mahmut Akgul, Kiril Trpkov, Ondrej Hes, Rohit Mehra, Michelle S. Hirsch, Holger Moch, Steven C. Smith, Rajal B. Shah, Liang Cheng, Mahul B. Amin, Jonathan I. Epstein, Anil V. Parwani, Brett Delahunt, Sangeeta Desai, Christopher G. Przybycin, Claudia Manini, Daniel J. Luthringer, Deepika Sirohi, Deepika Jain, Divya Midha, Ekta Jain, Fiona Maclean, Giovanna A. Giannico, Gladell P. Paner, Guido Martignoni, Hikmat A. Al-Ahmadie, Jesse McKenney, John R. Srigley, Jose Ignacio Lopez, L. Priya Kunju, Lisa Browning, Manju Aron, Maria M. Picken, Maria Tretiakova, Ming Zhou, Mukund Sable, Naoto Kuroda, Niharika Pattnaik, Nilesh S. Gupta, Priya Rao, Samson W. Fine, Pritinanda Mishra, Amit K. Adhya, Bijal N. Kulkarni, Mallika Dixit, Manas R. Baisakh, Samriti Arora, Sankalp Sancheti, Santosh Menon, Sara E. Wobker, Satish K. Tickoo, Seema Kaushal, Shailesh Soni, Shivani Kandukuri, Shivani Sharma, Suvradeep Mitra, Victor E. Reuter,..
{"title":"Acceptance of emerging renal oncocytic neoplasms: a survey of urologic pathologists","authors":"Sambit K. Mohanty, Anandi Lobo, Shilpy Jha, Ankur R. Sangoi, Mahmut Akgul, Kiril Trpkov, Ondrej Hes, Rohit Mehra, Michelle S. Hirsch, Holger Moch, Steven C. Smith, Rajal B. Shah, Liang Cheng, Mahul B. Amin, Jonathan I. Epstein, Anil V. Parwani, Brett Delahunt, Sangeeta Desai, Christopher G. Przybycin, Claudia Manini, Daniel J. Luthringer, Deepika Sirohi, Deepika Jain, Divya Midha, Ekta Jain, Fiona Maclean, Giovanna A. Giannico, Gladell P. Paner, Guido Martignoni, Hikmat A. Al-Ahmadie, Jesse McKenney, John R. Srigley, Jose Ignacio Lopez, L. Priya Kunju, Lisa Browning, Manju Aron, Maria M. Picken, Maria Tretiakova, Ming Zhou, Mukund Sable, Naoto Kuroda, Niharika Pattnaik, Nilesh S. Gupta, Priya Rao, Samson W. Fine, Pritinanda Mishra, Amit K. Adhya, Bijal N. Kulkarni, Mallika Dixit, Manas R. Baisakh, Samriti Arora, Sankalp Sancheti, Santosh Menon, Sara E. Wobker, Satish K. Tickoo, Seema Kaushal, Shailesh Soni, Shivani Kandukuri, Shivani Sharma, Suvradeep Mitra, Victor E. Reuter,..","doi":"10.1007/s00428-024-03909-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Oncocytic renal neoplasms are a major source of diagnostic challenge in genitourinary pathology; however, they are typically nonaggressive in general, raising the question of whether distinguishing different subtypes, including emerging entities, is necessary. Emerging entities recently described include eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT), and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity (PRNRP). A survey was shared among 65 urologic pathologists using SurveyMonkey.com (Survey Monkey, Santa Clara, CA, USA). De-identified and anonymized respondent data were analyzed. Sixty-three participants completed the survey and contributed to the study. Participants were from Asia (<i>n</i> = 21; 35%), North America (<i>n</i> = 31; 52%), Europe (<i>n</i> = 6; 10%), and Australia (<i>n</i> = 2; 3%). Half encounter oncocytic renal neoplasms that are difficult to classify monthly or more frequently. Most (70%) indicated that there is enough evidence to consider ESC RCC as a distinct entity now, whereas there was less certainty for LOT (27%), EVT (29%), and PRNRP (37%). However, when combining the responses for sufficient evidence currently and likely in the future, LOT and EVT yielded &gt; 70% and &gt; 60% for PRNRP. Most (60%) would not render an outright diagnosis of oncocytoma on needle core biopsy. There was a dichotomy in the routine use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the evaluation of oncocytoma (yes = 52%; no = 48%). The most utilized IHC markers included keratin 7 and 20, KIT, AMACR, PAX8, CA9, melan A, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)B, and fumarate hydratase (FH). Genetic techniques used included <i>TSC1/TSC2/MTOR</i> (67%) or <i>TFE3</i> (74%) genes and pathways; however, the majority reported using these very rarely. Only 40% have encountered low-grade oncocytic renal neoplasms that are deficient for FH. Increasing experience with the spectrum of oncocytic renal neoplasms will likely yield further insights into the most appropriate work-up, classification, and clinical management for these entities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03909-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Oncocytic renal neoplasms are a major source of diagnostic challenge in genitourinary pathology; however, they are typically nonaggressive in general, raising the question of whether distinguishing different subtypes, including emerging entities, is necessary. Emerging entities recently described include eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT), and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity (PRNRP). A survey was shared among 65 urologic pathologists using SurveyMonkey.com (Survey Monkey, Santa Clara, CA, USA). De-identified and anonymized respondent data were analyzed. Sixty-three participants completed the survey and contributed to the study. Participants were from Asia (n = 21; 35%), North America (n = 31; 52%), Europe (n = 6; 10%), and Australia (n = 2; 3%). Half encounter oncocytic renal neoplasms that are difficult to classify monthly or more frequently. Most (70%) indicated that there is enough evidence to consider ESC RCC as a distinct entity now, whereas there was less certainty for LOT (27%), EVT (29%), and PRNRP (37%). However, when combining the responses for sufficient evidence currently and likely in the future, LOT and EVT yielded > 70% and > 60% for PRNRP. Most (60%) would not render an outright diagnosis of oncocytoma on needle core biopsy. There was a dichotomy in the routine use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the evaluation of oncocytoma (yes = 52%; no = 48%). The most utilized IHC markers included keratin 7 and 20, KIT, AMACR, PAX8, CA9, melan A, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)B, and fumarate hydratase (FH). Genetic techniques used included TSC1/TSC2/MTOR (67%) or TFE3 (74%) genes and pathways; however, the majority reported using these very rarely. Only 40% have encountered low-grade oncocytic renal neoplasms that are deficient for FH. Increasing experience with the spectrum of oncocytic renal neoplasms will likely yield further insights into the most appropriate work-up, classification, and clinical management for these entities.

Abstract Image

对新出现的肾肿瘤细胞瘤的接受程度:泌尿科病理学家调查
肿瘤细胞性肾肿瘤是泌尿生殖系统病理学诊断中的一大难题;然而,这些肿瘤一般没有侵袭性,这就提出了是否有必要区分不同亚型(包括新出现的实体)的问题。最近描述的新兴实体包括嗜酸性实性和囊性肾细胞癌(ESC RCC)、低级别肿瘤(LOT)、嗜酸性空泡瘤(EVT)和具有反向极性的乳头状肾肿瘤(PRNRP)。我们使用 SurveyMonkey.com (Survey Monkey, Santa Clara, CA, USA)向 65 位泌尿科病理学家发放了调查问卷。对受访者的身份和匿名数据进行了分析。63 名参与者完成了调查并为研究做出了贡献。参与者分别来自亚洲(21 人;35%)、北美(31 人;52%)、欧洲(6 人;10%)和澳大利亚(2 人;3%)。半数人每月或更频繁地遇到难以分类的肿瘤细胞性肾肿瘤。大多数人(70%)表示,现在有足够的证据将 ESC RCC 视为一个独立的实体,而 LOT(27%)、EVT(29%)和 PRNRP(37%)的确定性较低。然而,如果将目前和未来可能的充分证据的回答合并,LOT 和 EVT 的确定性为 70%,PRNRP 的确定性为 60%。大多数人(60%)不会通过针芯活检直接诊断为肿瘤细胞瘤。在对肿瘤细胞瘤进行评估时,免疫组化(IHC)的常规使用存在两极分化(是 = 52%;否 = 48%)。使用最多的 IHC 标记包括角蛋白 7 和 20、KIT、AMACR、PAX8、CA9、黑色素 A、琥珀酸脱氢酶 (SDH)B 和富马酸氢化酶 (FH)。使用过的基因技术包括 TSC1/TSC2/MTOR(67%)或 TFE3(74%)基因和通路;但大多数人称很少使用这些技术。只有 40% 的人遇到过缺乏 FH 的低级别肿瘤细胞性肾肿瘤。对肿瘤细胞性肾肿瘤的经验不断增加,可能会对这些实体最合适的检查、分类和临床管理产生进一步的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Virchows Archiv
Virchows Archiv 医学-病理学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信