Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Frequency and clinicopathologic features of renal low-grade oncocytic tumour and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour: reclassification of 605 eosinophilic tumours including patients managed with active surveillance
  1. Roselyne Choiniere1,2,
  2. Shifaa' Al Qa'qa'1,3,
  3. Carol C Cheung1,2,
  4. Antonio Finelli4,
  5. Susan Prendeville1,2
  1. 1Division of Anatomic Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt, Jordan
  4. 4Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Susan Prendeville, Division of Anatomic Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada; susan.prendeville{at}uhn.ca

Abstract

Aims Low-grade oncocytic tumour (LOT) and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour (EVT) are recently described emerging entities, which demonstrate distinct features but are not yet recognised as separate neoplasms in the fifth WHO classification. Published series to date have been largely multi-institutional and based on surgically resected tumours. This study aims to determine the frequency, clinicopathologic features and outcome of LOT and EVT in a single institutional series of oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms, including patients managed with active surveillance and non-surgical intervention.

Methods and results Cases were identified from a consecutive institutional series of in-house renal tumours diagnosed on biopsy and/or nephrectomy (2003–2023). Tumours with a diagnosis or differential diagnosis of oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma or oncocytic neoplasm not otherwise specified (including LOT, EVT and tumours with overlapping hybrid features) were retrospectively reviewed and classified/reclassified.

In total, 605 oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms were reviewed, among which 33 LOT (5.5%) and 5 EVT (0.8%) were identified. LOT were CK7+, CD117− and GATA3+ (94%). EVT were CD117+, CK7 focal+ (80%) and cathepsin K+ (80%). At the median follow-up of 34 months (range 2–253) and 56 months (range 8–90) for LOT and EVT, respectively, there was no evidence of recurrence following ablation/surgical resection, metastasis or death from disease for all patients, including the 22 managed with active surveillance (20 LOT and 2 EVT).

Conclusions LOT and EVT comprised a minority of oncocytic renal neoplasms in this series. We report a large institutional series including patients managed non-surgically, with no adverse outcome, adding to the existing literature indicating a benign outcome.

  • DIAGNOSIS
  • Kidney Neoplasms
  • Pathology, Surgical

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Murali Varma.

  • X @QaShifaa, @@s_prendeville

  • Presented at Part of this work was presented as an abstract at the 2024 United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology meeting.

  • Contributors SP conceived and designed the study. All authors contributed to data acquisition and/or analysis. RC wrote the first draft of the manuscript and SP revised the manuscript. SP supervised the project and is the guarantor. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.