Original Article
Clinicopatholigic features of renal cell carcinoma associated with chromosome X inversion harboring gene fusions involving TFE3
Yinuo Zhao, Xiaotong Wang, Qiuyuan Xia, Gangping Wang, Shuyan Sun, Linfei Zhao, Xiaojun Zhou, Qiu Rao
Published 2018-08-08
Cite as Chin J Pathol, 2018, 47(8): 574-579. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5807.2018.08.002
Abstract
ObjectiveTo 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.
MethodsTen 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.
ResultsMorphologically, 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.
ConclusionsTwo 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.
Key words:
Carcinoma, renal; In situ hybridization, fluorescence; Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
Contributor Information
Yinuo Zhao
Department of Pathology, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing 210002, China
Xiaotong Wang
Qiuyuan Xia
Gangping Wang
Shuyan Sun
Linfei Zhao
Xiaojun Zhou
Qiu Rao