Argani, Pedram

Abstract GPNMB (Glycoprotein non-metastatic melanoma protein B) is a canonical transcriptional target of MiT/TFE proteins (TFEB/TFE3/MITF), expressed at low levels in normal tissues but upregulated in numerous MiT/TFE-driven tumors such as translocation RCC, alveolar soft part sarcoma and MITF-driven melanoma, where it is associated with poor prognosis. CDX-011 (CR011-MMAE) is an anti-GPNMB ADC, with demonstrated efficacy in pre-clinical models of TFE3-fusion RCC. To further characterize GPNMB functionality and value as a cell-surface therapeutic target in tRCC, we engineered cell lines with genomic deletion of GPNMB via CRSIPR-Cas9 editing. Deletion of GPNMB in PRCC-TFE3 cell lines [UOK120/UOK124] significantly decreased clonogenic growth in 2D, spheroid size and viability and tumor xenograft growth in NSG mice and was associated with a decrease in phosphorylation of mTORC1 substrates [p-P70S6K, p-4EBP1]. We then examined expression of CD44, the primary receptor for GPNMB, and a tumor-associated antigen associated with poor prognosis in many cancers. Expression of CD44 and its ligand SPP1/OPN, was significantly increased in bulk RNA-Seq data from multiple transgenic models of SFPQ-TFE3, PRCC-TFE3 and ASPSCR1-TFE3, in human tRCC cases compared to normal kidney, and in SFPQ-TFE3/ PRCC-TFE3 transgenic kidney tumors and an ASPSCR-TFE3 PDX model, by immunoblotting and IHC, with increased membrane localization. shRNA-mediated depletion of CD44 profoundly and specifically decreased clonogenicity of multiple TFE3-fusion lines, with no effect seen in ccRCC lines. In conclusion, GPNMB regulates the growth of tRCC cells, potentially via an autocrine mechanism involving its receptor CD44, and targeting GPNMB-CD44 signaling may be of therapeutic benefit in tRCC. Citation Format: Kaushal Asrani, Juhyung Woo, Kewen Feng, Thiago Vidotto, Adrianna Amaral, Vikrant Palande, Jayaprakash Mandal, Eddie Imada, Christopher Thoburn, Sangeeta Ray, Huili Li, Yasser Ged, Nirmish Singla, John A. Copland, Laura Schmidt, W. Marston Linehan, Pedram Argani, Tamara Lotan. GPNMB:CD44 signaling drives tumor progression in translocation renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Kidney Cancer Research: From Molecular Insights to Therapeutic Breakthroughs; 2026 Mar 13-16; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(5_Suppl_2):Abstract nr B014.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) syndrome is associated with an increased risk of multifocal renal tumors, including hybrid oncocytic tumor (HOT) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC). HOT exhibits heterogenous histologic features overlapping with chRCC and benign renal oncocytoma, posing challenges in diagnosis of HOT and renal tumor entities resembling HOT. In this study, we performed integrative analysis of bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data from renal tumors and normal kidney tissues, and nominated candidate biomarkers of HOT, L1CAM, and LINC01187, which are also lineage-specific markers labeling the principal cell and intercalated cell lineages of the distal nephron, respectively. Our findings indicate the principal cell lineage marker L1CAM and intercalated cell lineage marker LINC01187 to be expressed mutually exclusively in a unique checkered pattern in BHD-associated HOTs, and these 2 lineage markers collectively capture the 2 distinct tumor epithelial populations seen to co-exist morphologically in HOTs. We further confirmed that the unique checkered expression pattern of L1CAM and LINC01187 distinguished HOT from chRCC, renal oncocytoma, and other major and rare renal cell carcinoma subtypes. We also characterized the histopathologic features and immunophenotypic features of oncocytosis in the background kidney of patients with BHD, as well as the intertumor and intratumor heterogeneity seen within HOT. We suggest that L1CAM and LINC01187 can serve as stand-alone diagnostic markers or as a panel for the diagnosis of HOT. These lineage markers will inform future studies on the evolution and interaction between the 2 transcriptionally distinct tumor epithelial populations in such tumors.

Introduction. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chromophobe RCC) is the third major subcategory of renal tumors after clear cell RCC and papillary RCC, accounting for approximately 5% of all RCC subtypes. Other oncocytic neoplasms seen commonly in surgical pathology practice include the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe RCC, renal oncocytoma, and low-grade oncocytic unclassified RCC. Methods. In our recent next-generation sequencing based study, we nominated a lineage-specific novel biomarker LINC01187 (long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 1187) which was found to be enriched in chromophobe RCC. Like KIT (cluster of differentiation 117; CD117), a clinically utilized chromophobe RCC related biomarker, LINC01187 is expressed in intercalated cells of the nephron. In this follow-up study, we performed KIT immunohistochemistry and LINC01187 RNA in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH) on a cohort of chromophobe RCC and other renal neoplasms, characterized the expression patterns, and quantified the expression signals of the two biomarkers in both primary and metastatic settings. Results. LINC01187, in comparison to KIT, exhibits stronger and more uniform expression within tumors while maintaining temporal and spatial consistency. LINC01187 also is devoid of intra-tumoral heterogeneous expression pattern, a phenomenon commonly noted with KIT. Conclusions. LINC01187 expression can augment the currently utilized KIT assay and help facilitate easy microscopic analyses in routine surgical pathology practice.

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.

Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma are frequently termed cellular fibroadenomas although criteria for distinguishing them from a phyllodes tumor are vague and subjective. However, the clinical implications and surgical management for these 2 lesions may be different. We randomly selected 21 cases of fibroepithelial lesions sent in consultation to the senior author that were challenging to classify as cellular fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. One to 2 representative slides of each case along with patient age were sent to 10 pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. The World Health Organization criteria for phyllodes tumors and a diagnosis form were included with the study set. For the purposes of data reporting, fibroadenoma and cellular fibroadenoma are considered together. In only 2 cases was there uniform agreement as to whether the tumor represented a fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. Of the remaining 19 cases, if the diagnoses of fibroadenoma and benign phyllodes tumor were combined and separated from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors, there was 100% agreement in 53% of cases and 90% agreement in 79% of cases. This study highlights the difficulty that exists in distinguishing some cellular fibroadenomas from phyllodes tumors even for pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. However, there appears to be considerable agreement when cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors are distinguished from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors. Further studies are needed to determine if there is a clinically significant difference between cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors and how to better distinguish them from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors.