Idrees, Muhammad T.

Aims Testicular sex cord‐stromal tumours (TSCSTs) are rare neoplasms that arise from (or show differentiation to) elements derived from the sex cords or intertubular stroma. The current classification (World Health Organization, 2022) is based almost entirely on morphology, with many tumour types such as granulosa cell tumours being defined based on their resemblance to ovarian counterparts. Recent studies have uncovered new clinicopathological, molecular and biological nuances within this group of tumours, underscoring differences with ovarian homologues. Methods and results Considering the new data, a group of genitourinary pathology experts (Testicular Sex Cord‐Stromal Tumour [TESST] group) has proposed a revised ‘TESST classification’ that incorporates the best available evidence. This classification is structured and hierarchical, composed of the following tiers: (1) group, (2) category, (3) entity and (4) histological pattern. ‘Group’ refers to the histological compartment a specific tumour belongs to (sex cords, stroma or both), whereas ‘category’ is defined by the phenotype of the tumour, taking non‐neoplastic elements of the ovary and testis as a reference. The third tier, ‘entity’, refers to neoplasms with shared clinicopathological and/or molecular features that justify classifying them as distinct types. Lastly, ‘histological patterns’ are recurrent morphological variations within entities that are not linked to distinct clinicopathological or molecular features. Conclusions We propose a classification that will provide a framework to improve current clinical management and guide future research in the field.

Aims Testicular sex cord‐stromal tumours (TSCSTs) are relatively rare, accounting for ~5% of all testicular neoplasms. They were historically classified into Leydig cell tumour, Sertoli cell tumour, granulosa cell tumour, and unclassified sex cord‐stromal tumour. More recently, classification was expanded to incorporate additional histologic types, including some associated with inherited cancer predisposition syndromes. However, the classification of TSCSTs still relies entirely on morphology, with some tumour types being defined based on their resemblance to ovarian counterparts. In recent years, molecular studies have identified drivers and genomic alterations associated with aggressive behaviour and progression; however, these findings have not yet impacted classification and management. Methods and results Under sponsorship of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS), a group of genitourinary pathologists was assembled in 2023 with the aim of assessing how to use these new data to improve the classification and management of TSCSTs. Conclusions This paper summarizes the recommendations derived from the consensus activities and the first meeting of the te sticular s ex cord‐ s tromal t umour (TESST) group (held at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, USA, 3/23/2024).

Context.— Distinguishing between renal oncocytic tumors, such as renal oncocytoma (RO), and a subset of tumors with overlapping characteristics, including the recently identified low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), can present a diagnostic challenge for pathologists owing to shared histopathologic features. Objective.— To develop an automatic computational classifier for stratifying whole slide images of biopsy and resection specimens into 2 distinct groups: RO and LOT. Design.— A total of 269 whole slide images from 125 cases across 6 institutions were collected. A weakly supervised attention-based multiple-instance–learning deep learning (DL) model was trained and initially evaluated through 5-fold cross validation with case-level stratification, followed by validation using an independent holdout data set. Quantitative performance evaluation was based on accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results.— The developed model data set yielded generalizable performance, with a 5-fold average testing accuracy of 84% (AUC = 0.78), and a closely aligning accuracy of 83% (AUC = 0.92) on the independent holdout data set. Conclusions.— The proposed artificial intelligence approach contributes toward a comprehensive solution for addressing commonly encountered renal oncocytic neoplasms, encompassing well-established entities like RO along with the challenging “gray zone” LOT, thereby proving applicable in clinical practice.

AimsLarge cell calcifying Sertoli cell tumour (LCCSCT) is a rare testicular sex cord‐stromal tumour that primarily affects young patients and is associated with Carney complex. We sought to characterise the clinicopathological features of a series of LCCSCT and evaluate the diagnostic utility of PRKAR1A immunohistochemistry (IHC).Methods and resultsThe LCCSCT cohort (n = 15) had a median age of 16 years (range = 2–30 years). Four patients were known to have Carney complex. PRKAR1A IHC was performed in each case. For comparison, PRKAR1A IHC was also assessed in other sex cord‐stromal tumours, including Sertoli cell tumour, not otherwise specified (SCT, NOS; n = 10), intratubular large cell hyalinising Sertoli cell tumour (n = 1) and Leydig cell tumour (n = 23). Loss of cytoplasmic PRKAR1A expression was observed in all but one LCCSCT (14 of 15; 93%). PRKAR1A expression was retained in all SCTs, NOS (10 of 10; 100%), the majority of Leydig cell tumours (22 of 23; 96%) and an intratubular large cell hyalinising Sertoli cell tumour (1 of 1; 100%). One Leydig cell tumour showed equivocal staining (multifocal weak expression).ConclusionsOverall, PRKAR1A loss is both sensitive (93%) and highly specific (97%) for the diagnosis of LCCSCT. PRKAR1A loss may aid its diagnosis, particularly in sporadic cases and those that are the first presentation of Carney complex.

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.