• Y N Zhao, X T Wang, Q Y Xia, G P Wang, S Y Sun, L F Zhao, X J Zhou, and Q Rao.
• Department of Pathology, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing 210002, China.
• Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi. 2018 Aug 8; 47 (8): 574-579.

AbstractObjective: To study the clinicopathologic features, immunophenotype, characteristic FISH pattern and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) associated with chromosome X inversion harboring gene fusions involving TFE3. Methods: Ten cases of NONO-TFE3 RCC and four cases of RBM10-TFE3 RCC were investigated at Nanjing Jinling Hospital from 2009 to 2016 by clinicopathological findings, immunohistochemistry, and genetic analysis. Results: Morphologically, the distinct pattern of secretory endometrioid subnuclear vacuolization was overlapped with clear cell papillary RCC, and often accompanied by sheets of epithelial cells in NONO-TFE3 RCC. Most cases of RBM10-TFE3 RCC presented with the biphasic feature that acinar, tubular and papillary patterns of epithelioid cells combined with sheets of small cells with "pseudorosette-like" architectures. In addition, cytoplasmic vacuolization, nuclear groove, and psammoma bodies were also observed. Immunohistochemically, all NONO-TFE3 RCC cases were immunoreactive for TFE3, CD10, RCC markers, and PAX8, and negative for CK7, Cathepsin K, Melan A, HMB45, Ksp-cadherin, vimentin, and CD117. All 4 cases of RBM10-TFE3 RCC showed moderate to strong immunoreactivity for TFE3, Cathepsin K, CD10, Ksp-cadherin, E-cadherin, P504s, RCC marker, PAX8, and vimentin but negative for TFEB, HMB45 and CK7. CKpan and Melan A were at least focally expressed. The antibody to Ki-67 showed labeling of 3%-8% (mean 5%). There were some expression discrepancies of immunochemistry between different histological patterns. PAX8, CKpan, P504s, and Ksp-cadherin were expressed in epithelioid areas but not in small-cell areas. Ki-67 labeling index of epithelioid areas was higher than that in small-cell areas. In molecular analysis, NONO-TFE3 fusion transcripts were identified in 6 patients. The fusion points were between exon 7 of NONO and exon 6 of TFE3 in 5 patients and between exon 9 of NONO and exon 5 of TFE3 in one patient. All 4 cases of RBM10-TFE3 RCC demonstrated to have RBM10-TFE3 fusion transcripts and the fusion points were between exon 5 of TFE3 and exon 17 of RBM10. Using TFE3 break-apart FISH assay, all 10 cases of NONO-TFE3 RCC showed characteristic patterns of equivocal split signals with a distance of nearly 2 signal diameters. All 4 cases of RBM10-TFE3 RCC showed colocalized or subtle split signals with a distance of <1 signal diameter, which was considered as negative results. Long-term follow-up was available for 7 patients of NONO-TFE3 RCC and 4 patients of RBM10-TFE3 RCC. All patients were alive with no evidence of disease. Conclusions: Two rare genotypes, NONO-TFE3 RCC and RBM10-TFE3 RCC, are reported in this study. Both of these two tumors show specific morphology and good prognosis, along with the positive TFE3 staining and the equivocal or false-negative TFE3 FISH results, which could be missed. PCR detection or next-generation sequencing can determine the genotype.

33 keywords...

hide…