Barkan, Güliz A.

Juxtaglomerular cell tumor (JxGCT) is a rare type of renal neoplasm demonstrating morphologic overlap with some mesenchymal tumors such as glomus tumor (GT) and solitary fibrous tumor (SFT). Its oncogenic drivers remain elusive, and only a few cases have been analyzed with modern molecular techniques. In prior studies, loss of chromosomes 9 and 11 appeared to be recurrent. Recently, whole-genome analysis identified alterations involving genes of MAPK-RAS pathway in a subset, but no major pathogenic alterations have been discovered in prior whole transcriptome analyses. Considering the limited understanding of the molecular features of JxGCTs, we sought to assess a collaborative series with a multiomic approach to further define the molecular characteristics of this entity. Fifteen tumors morphologically compatible with JxGCTs were evaluated using immunohistochemistry for renin, single-nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP), low-pass whole-genome sequencing, and RNA sequencing (fusion assay). In addition, methylation analysis comparing JxGCT, GT, and SFT was performed. All cases tested with renin (n=11) showed positive staining. Multiple chromosomal abnormalities were identified in all cases analyzed (n=8), with gains of chromosomes 1p, 10, 17, and 19 and losses of chromosomes 9, 11, and 21 being recurrent. A pathogenic HRAS mutation was identified in one case as part of the SNP array analysis. Thirteen tumors were analyzed by RNA sequencing, with 2 revealing in-frame gene fusions: TFG::GPR128 (interpreted as stochastic) and NAB2::STAT6. The latter, originally diagnosed as JxGCT, was reclassified as SFT and excluded from the series. No fusions were detected in the remaining 11 cases; of note, no case harbored NOTCH fusions previously described in GT. Genomic methylation analysis showed that JxGCT, GT, and SFT form separate clusters, confirming that JxGCT represents a distinct entity (ie, different from GT). The results of our study show that JxGCTs are a distinct tumor type with a recurrent pattern of chromosomal imbalances that may play a role in oncogenesis, with MAPK-RAS pathway activation being likely a driver in a relatively small subset.

Context.— Cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC) is a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–mandated requirement for gynecologic cytology, but no similar requirement exists for nongynecologic cytology. This study presents the findings from a College of American Pathologists survey of nongynecologic cytology practice patterns. Objective.— To survey the current CHC practices for nongynecologic cytology. Design.— Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the committee and distributed to participants in the Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing. Results.— Adoption of CHC for nongynecologic cytology cases is worldwide, with 88.5% of institutions performing CHC on these specimens, a substantial increase from previous years. Performance of CHC varied by institution type, with clinic or regional/local independent laboratories and national/corporate laboratories performing CHC significantly less frequently than hospitals, university hospitals/academic medical centers, and Veterans Administration/Department of Defense hospital institutions. Most CHC was performed concurrently in real time, when the corresponding surgical specimen was reviewed. Selection for real-time concurrent CHC was by the interpreting pathologist, the pathologist diagnosing the surgical biopsy sample or cytopathology case, or both. Sampling was by far the most common reason for discordance. A 2-step difference was the most frequent threshold for discordance between cytology and surgical specimens, but this criterion varied among institutions, with no majority definition. The positive predictive value of a positive cytology finding was calculated rarely in North American institutions but was calculated more frequently in international institutions. Conclusions.— CHC practices for nongynecologic cytopathology mirror those found for CHC of gynecologic cytopathology.

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.

BackgroundFine needle aspiration (FNA) is commonly used for the preoperative evaluation of salivary gland tumors. Tumor grade is a key factor influencing clinical management of salivary gland carcinomas (SGCs). To assess the ability to grade nonbasaloid SGCs in FNA specimens, an international panel of cytopathologists convened to review and score SGC cases.MethodsThe study cohort included 61 cases of primary SGC from the pathology archives of 3 tertiary medical centers. Cases from 2005 to 2016 were selected, scanned, and digitized. Nineteen cytopathologists blinded to the histologic diagnosis reviewed the digitized cytology slides and graded them as low, high, or indeterminate. The panelists' results were then compared to the tumor grades based on histopathologic examination of the corresponding resection specimens.ResultsAll but 2 of the 19 (89.5%) expert panelists review more than 20 salivary gland FNAs per year; 16 (84.2%) of the panelists work at academic medical centers, and 13 (68.4%) have more than 10 years' experience. Participants had an overall accuracy of 89.4% in the grading of SGC cases, with 90.2% and 88.3% for low‐ and high‐grade SGC, respectively. Acinic cell carcinoma and mucoepidermoid carcinoma had the highest degree of accuracy, while epithelial‐myoepithelial carcinoma and salivary duct carcinoma had the lowest degree of accuracy. As expected, the intermediate‐grade SGC cases showed the greatest variability (high‐grade, 42.1%; low‐grade, 37.5%, indeterminate, 20.4%).ConclusionThis study confirms the high accuracy of cytomorphologic grading of primary SGC by FNA as low‐ or high‐grade. However, caution should be exercised when a grade cannot be confidently assigned.

BackgroundThe Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) offers a six‐tiered diagnostic scheme for thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA): Benign, Atypia of Undetermined Significance/Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance (AUS/FLUS), suspicious for follicular neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, malignant, and unsatisfactory with an aim to standardize diagnostic criteria. Reported rate of AUS/FLUS category in the literature has varied from 3% to 20.5%.MethodsThe aim of this study was to assess interobserver variability among cytopathologists to assess reproducibility of the AUS/FLUS category. Seven cytopathologists brought FNA cases (a mixture of atypical and non‐atypical FNA diagnosis) diagnosed using TBSRTC from their respective institutions which were reviewed and diagnosed by the participants. The analysis assessed interobserver variability among 7 cytopathologists and determined characteristics on the slides which were associated with concordance to the institutional diagnosis.ResultsSeventy eight of 125 (62.4%) benign cases were classified as benign by the reviewers and 26 (21%) were called AUS/FLUS on review. A third of the AUS/FLUS cases were called benign on review and 28.2% were classified as suspicious for neoplasia/malignancy. Roughly a third each of the suspicious for follicular neoplasm/suspicious for malignancy cases were classified as AUS/FLUS.DiscussionWhen pathologists from different institutions shared their slides, concordance was high for specimens with adequate cellularity and those that were clearly benign but thresholds varied for the other indeterminate categories. Most definite categorization of the AUS/FLUS category was seen on review. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2017;45:399–405. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.