Hes, Ondřej

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in bladder cancer focusing on important topics of high interest for the practicing surgical pathologist and urologist. This review represents the second of 2 manuscripts ensuing from this effort. Herein, we address the effective reporting of bladder cancer, focusing particularly on newly published data since the last 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. In addition, this review focuses on the importance of reporting bladder cancer with divergent differentiation and variant (subtypes of urothelial carcinoma) histologies and the potential impact on patient care. We provide new recommendations for reporting pT1 staging in diagnostic pathology. Furthermore, we explore molecular evolution and classification, emphasizing aspects that impact the understanding of important concepts relevant to reporting and management of patients.

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.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.

572 Background: Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is an aggressive malignancy affecting predominantly young African Americans with sickle cell trait (SCT) or disease (SCD), while a pathologically similar collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) affects patients without sickle cell trait. Clinical responses to chemotherapy and IL-2 in RMC/CDC are poor and novel therapies are needed. Methods: 9 patients with RMC (ages 13-58 y. o., all male) and 15 patients (ages 26-74 y. o., M:F = 13:2) with collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) were studied. Expression of PD-L1 was evaluated with 2 monoclonal antibodies (SP142 and SP263) and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were evaluated for PD1 expression (MRQ-22 antibody) using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Additional studies included ALK protein expression (D5F3 antibody), gene translocation (break apart FISH), next generation sequencing (NGS), and microsatellite instability (MSI). Results: Cancer cell PD-L1 expression above the threshold ( ≥ 2+, ≥ 5%) was seen in 7/9 RMC and 5/13 CDC cases. Concordance between 2 PD-L1 antibodies was 94.4%. PD-1+ TIL were absent in 6/18 cases and variably present in 12/18 cases (from 1 to > 15 TIL/40x power field). No MSI was detected in any of the cases tested (0/6). No case expressed ALK protein, but one case of CDC showed ALK gene re-arrangement. Mutations were identified in SMARCB1, FH, TP53 (3x), ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2 (2x), NF2 (3x), SETD2, and CDKN2A. No mutations in VHL or KDR were detected. One patient with RMC (and SCT) achieved complete clinical remission after treatment with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Conclusions: RMC and CDC strongly express PD-L1 in the majority of cases (12/22), suggesting that these patients may benefit from targeting the PD-L1/PD1 interaction. The absence of MSI in these cancers indicates a different mechanism of PD-L1 upregulation from colorectal carcinomas. Consistent with our previous study that showed frequent activation of (pseudo)hypoxia-induced pathways in RMCs (Human Pathology 2011;42:1979), we describe a case of RMC successfully treated with anti-VEGF therapy.