Department of Pathology, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.
State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, Department of Pathology, Xi Jing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 Apr;44(4):477-489. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001408.
Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with "negative" TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.
Xp11 肾细胞癌(RCC)的不同基因融合可能具有不同的临床病理特征。我们试图鉴定 TFEB 易位 RCC 中的变异融合。本研究共选择了 31 例 TFEB RCC 病例;使用融合探针在 25 例(81%,25/31)中鉴定出 MALAT1-TFEB 融合。其余 6 例(19%,6/31)通过 RNA 测序进一步分析,其中 5 例检测到 TFEB 相关基因融合,包括 2 例 ACTB-TFEB、1 例 EWSR1-TFEB、1 例 CLTC-TFEB 和 1 例潜在 PPP1R10-TFEB(TFEB 基因的旁centric 倒位,与“阴性”TFEB 分裂 FISH 结果一致,并提示在检测 TFEB 基因重排时存在潜在的诊断陷阱)。5 个融合转录本中的 4 个通过逆转录-聚合酶链反应和 Sanger 测序成功验证。形态学上,约三分之一(29%,9/31)的 TFEB RCC 表现出典型的双相形态。其余三分之二(71%,22/31)的病例表现出非特异性形态,具有巢状、片状或乳头状结构,类似于其他类型的肾肿瘤,如透明细胞 RCC、Xp11 RCC、血管周上皮样细胞瘤(PEComa)或乳头状 RCC。尽管携带 MALAT1-TFEB 融合的病例表现出不同的形态,但所有 9 例具有典型双相形态的病例均与 MALAT1-TFEB 基因型相关。因此,典型的双相形态提示 MALAT1-TFEB 融合,而非典型形态则不提示特定的融合类型。孤立或簇状嗜酸性细胞是 TFEB RCC 的常见特征,这可能是 TFEB RCC 的有用形态学诊断线索。临床病理变量评估显示,坏死是唯一与 TFEB RCC 侵袭性行为相关的形态学特征(P=0.004)。总之,本研究扩展了 TFEB RCC 的基因组谱和临床病理特征,并强调了通过结合形态学和多种分子技术对这种肿瘤进行诊断和亚型分类的重要性。