Al-Obaidy, Khaleel

AimsCompared to lymphovascular invasion (LVI), hilar soft tissue invasion (HSTI) is a relatively novel pT2 staging parameter in testicular germ cell tumours (GCT), associated with metastasis at the time of diagnosis and a risk factor for disease relapse. Given diagnostic variability in how pathologists interpret HSTI, herein we explore interobserver reproducibility among genitourinary (GU) pathologists.MethodsTwenty haematoxylin and eosin‐stained digitized slides from testicular GCTs were distributed to 30 GU pathologists to classify each as HSTI or not HSTI based on their respective clinical practices; slides with concomitant LVI were excluded. Slides were then evaluated for the following morphologic features: tumour invasion beyond prominent hilar vessels, tumour invasion beyond the rete, tumour invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and tumour within (directly touching) hilar adipose tissue. Interobserver reproducibility was assessed, and the morphological features were correlated with HSTI. Relationships between pathologists' interpretations, morphological features and HSTI were evaluated using hierarchical clustering.ResultsAlthough the diagnosis of HSTI was relatively uniform with a majority agreement (>67%) reached in 17/20 slides, overall interobserver reproducibility was only moderate (kappa = 0.50). Morphological features such as invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and invasion into fat were more sensitive and specific for HSTI, while features such as invasion beyond hilar vessels and invasion beyond rete were less useful.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that more specific defined diagnostic criteria for testicular GCT HSTI are needed.

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.