Jpn J Clin Oncol 2000;30(2)101–104
Case Reports
Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with Osseous Metaplasia: a Case Report Hiroshi Yokozaki1, Rinzo Ukai2, Eiso Kawashita2, Hiroshi Ikeda2, Hiroki Kuniyasu1 and Eiichi Tahara1 1First
Department of Pathology, Hiroshima University School of Medicine and 2Department of Urology, Hiroshima General Hospital of West Japan Railway Company, Hiroshima, Japan
Received September 16, 1999; accepted October 29, 1999
A 60-year-old Japanese male with a chromophobe cell carcinoma of his left kidney is reported. The tumor, 18 × 27 mm in size, was incidentally found by abdominal ultrasonography. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a well-demarcated solid tumor arising from the lower pole of the left kidney. Histopathological examination of the surgically removed tumor revealed that it was composed of solid sheets of cancer cells having abundant and slightly eosinophilic reticular cytoplasm with accentuated cell membranes making up a plant cell-like appearance. Electron microscopic examination demonstrated numerous intracytoplasmic microvesicles. Although the tumor cells were positive for cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen, they did not show vimentin immunoreactivity. The unique histological finding of this tumor from other reported renal chromophobe carcinomas was that it had a peripheral fibrotic area with a focus of metaplastic ossification. Key words: renal cell carcinoma – chromophobe cell carcinoma – ossification – immunohistochemistry – electron microscopy
INTRODUCTION The updated WHO histological classification offers a subdivision of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by both their morphological and cytogenetic features into clear cell, granular cell, chromophobe cell, spindle cell, cyst-associated, papillary and collecting-duct carcinomas (1). Chromophobe cell carcinoma of the kidney is a recently recognized category of human RCC (2) that was initially described in nitrosomorpholine-induced experimental rat RCC by Bannasch et al. (3). At present, chromophobe RCC may account for about 5% of all cases of RCC. Cancer cells of this distinct type of RCC display a characteristic weak and cloudy cytoplasmic staining pattern imparting a reticular appearance with conventional hematoxylin and eosin stain, corresponding to a variable number of
For reprints and all correspondence: Hiroshi Yokozaki, First Department of Pathology, Hiroshima University School of Medicine, 1–2–3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima 734-8551, Japan. E-mail:
[email protected] Abbreviations: RCC, renal cell carcinoma; CT, computed tomography; PAS, periodic acid–Schiff; AB, alcian blue; EMA, epithelial membrane antigen; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin
cytoplasmic microvesicles seen by electron microscopy. Genetically, it is characterized by a combination of loss of heterozygosity at chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 21 (4). Ultrastructural and immunohistochemical characterization have demonstrated the close phenotypic similarity between chromophobe RCC and intercalated cells of the renal collecting duct (5,6). Here we present a case of chromophobe RCC with osseous metaplasia within the tumor tissue.
CASE REPORT CLINICAL SUMMARY A physician incidentally found a tumor of the left kidney in a 60-year-old Japanese male by abdominal ultrasonography in the course of a routine check-up. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a well-demarcated, solid tumor arising from the lower pole of the left kidney (Fig. 1). The tumor was subsequently removed by partial nephrectomy at the Department of Urology, Hiroshima General Hospital of West Japan Railway Company. The patient has been followed up for 2 years by abdominal CT taken every 3 months after the surgery without any evidence of tumor recurrence or metastasis. © 2000 Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research
102
Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma
acid–Schiff (PAS) staining demonstrated a fine and delicate reaction to glycogen in comparison with heavy deposits observed in ordinary clear cell carcinomas (not shown). The cytoplasm of the tumor cells revealed a diffuse positive reaction with Hale’s colloidal iron stain (Fig. 2c), which is a diagnostic feature for chromophobe RCC (2). The peripheral part of the tumor underwent sclerotic fibrosis and focal osseous metaplasia was found (Fig. 2d). The tumor cells revealed a positive immunoreaction to EMA and cytokeratin, while vimentin immunoreactivity was exclusively negative throughout the tumor. Electron microscopy of the tumor cell revealed numerous microvesicles within the cytoplasm (not shown). These vesicles, round to oval in shape, were 200–400 nm in diameter and had a tendency to be concentrated adjacent to and surrounding the nucleus.
DISCUSSION
Figure 1. Medical imaging of the renal tumor. (a) Coronal images on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging reveal a well-defined, solid tumor arising from the lower pole of the left kidney with inhomogeneous enhancement. (b) Plain computed tomography shows a small calculus within the tumor.
PATHOLOGICAL FINDINGS The resected tumor, measuring 18 × 27 mm, was well circumscribed with a fibrous capsule. The cut surface of the tumor was brownish tan with focal hemorrhage. Necrotic area was not observed. Paraffin sections from formalin-fixed material were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff (PAS), alcian blue (AB) and Hale’s colloidal iron. Immunohistochemical examination was undertaken using Vectastain avidin–biotin peroxidase complex kit (Vector, Burlingame, CA) and specific monoclonal antibodies against epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) (Clone GP1.4), cytokeratin (Clone 5D3 and LP34) and vimentin (Clone VIM3B4) as described elsewhere (7). Antibodies were purchased from Novocastra (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK). Histologically, the tumor was composed of solid cell sheets surrounded by delicate stroma containing capillaries (Fig. 2a). The tumor cells had abundant and cloudy cytoplasm imparting a reticular appearance with accentuated cell membranes making up a plant cell-like appearance. The nuclei were slightly pleomorphic with coarsely granular chromatin and occasional prominent nucleoli conforming to a grade 2 nuclear atypia (Fig. 2b). Periodic
Although limited data are available regarding the clinical behavior of chromophobe RCC, it has been suggested that this distinctive type of RCC has a relatively low malignant potential compared with common type RCC (8,9). Histopathological characteristics of chromophobe RCC are a nesting arrangement of the tumor cells with sharply defined borders (plant-like appearance) and abundant pale acidophilic reticular cytoplasm (2). Since the initial report by Thoenes et al. (2), positive cytoplasmic reaction to Hale’s collodal iron stain has been considered to be a diagnostic feature for chromophobe RCC and has been used as a discriminatory feature to differentiate it from other renal tumors. However, it is noted that other subtypes of renal cancer also show positive reaction to this method with different staining patterns in comparison with that described for chromophobe RCCs. Tickoo et al. (10) emphasized that the diffuse and strong reticular cytoplasmic stain with Hale’s method, as was observed in tumor cells in the present case, was highly characteristic of chromophobe RCC. The presence of variable numbers of intracytoplasmic microvesicles is an important electron microscopic feature of this type of RCC (2). Bonsib and Lager (9) and Akhtar et al. (11) suggested that these microvesicles may be derived from the outer membranes of mitochondria through extensive ultrastructural study. However, Tickoo et al. (12) could not observe coarse granular cytoplasmic staining by antimitochondrial antibody 113–1, that recognizes a 60 kDa non-glycosylated protein component of mitochondria, in typical chromophobe RCC. Tumor cells of chromophobe RCC present negative vimentin immunoreactivity, while demonstrating positive immunoreaction to cytokeratin and EMA, as was observed with the present tumor (13). This is also one of the characteristic phenotypes of chromophobe RCC for distinction from common-type RCCs. From these morphological observations, we concluded that the present tumor was compatible with typical chromophobe RCC (8). The unique histopathological finding of the present chromophobe RCC is a focus of bone formation within the tumor. Daniel et al. (14) reported that 10.3% (58/580) of renal cell
Jpn J Clin Oncol 2000;30(2)
103
Figure 2. Histopathological findings of the tumor resected from the left kidney. (a) The tumor was composed of solid cell sheets with delicate stroma containing capillaries. H&E stain (×27). (b) Tumor cells have abundant reticular cytoplasm with accentuated cell membranes making up a plant cell-like appearance. H&E stain (×131). (c) Cancer cells reveal diffuse positive staining with Hale’s colloidal iron stain (×131). (d) Small foci of osseous metaplasia are found at the peripheral sclerotic area of the tumor. H&E stain (×68).
carcinomas had calcified foci through a roentogenographic review of 2709 renal masses at the Mayo Clinic. Moreover, reports on osseous metaplasia or bone formation within RCC with histopathological confirmation are rare (15,16). Although Akhtar et al. (11) described two cases of chromophobe RCC with radiologically validated calcification, substantially this is the first report on chromophobe RCC with histologically proven ossification. Because the ossified focus in the present case was found within the fibrotic area of the tumor apart from cancer cell nests, stromal osseous metaplasia could be the best explanation for the histogenesis (17). Recent advances in cytogenetic and molecular biological analysis have disclosed the genetic background of each subtype of RCC (18). Speicher et al. (4) reported specific loss of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 21 in chromophobe RCC by a comparative genomic hybridization method. On the other hand, common-type RCCs are genetically separated from others based on the occurrence of a highly specific deletion of chromosome 3p (19) with mutation of VHL gene (20). Combination of histopathological examination and molecular cytogenetic analysis as was proposed by Bugert and Kovacs (21) may improve the accuracy of diagnosis of RCCs according to the new WHO classification in the near future.
Acknowledgments We are grateful to Ms H. Ukai, Mr T. Habara, Ms M. Yasuhara and Mr T. Shimizu (Department of Pathology, Hiroshima General Hospital of West Japan Railway Company) for their skillful histopathological preparations. We are also indebted to Mr M. Takatani (First Department of Pathology, Hiroshima University School of Medicine) for his excellent technical assistance with electron microscopy. We thank Dr T. Iwamoto (Miyoshi Central Hospital) for valuable suggestions and discussions. Part of this case report was presented at the 38th Hiroshima Assembly of Pathologists (May 22, 1999).
References 1. Mostofi FK, Davis CJ. Histological Typing of Kidney Tumours. World Health Organization International Histological Classification of Tumours, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer 1997. 2. Thoenes W, Störkel S, Rumpelt H-J. Human chromophobe cell renal carcinoma. Virchows Arch B 1985;48:207–17. 3. Bannasch P, Schacht U, Storch E. Morphogenese und Mikromorphologie epithelialer Nirentumoren bei Nitrosomorpholin-vergifteten Ratten. I. Induktion und Histologie der Tumoren. Z Krebsforsch 1974;81:311–31. 4. Speicher MR, Schoell B, du Manoir S, Schröck E, Ried T, Cremer T, et al. Specific loss of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 21 in chromophobe
104
5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma
renal cell carcinomas revealed by comparative genomic hybridization. Am J Pathol 1994;145:356–64. Störkel S, Steart PV, Drenckhahn D, Thoenes W. The human chromophobe cell renal carcinoma: its probable relation to intercalated cells of the collecting duct. Virchows Arch B 1989;56:237–45. Füzesi L, Cober M, Mittermayer CH. Collecting duct carcinoma. Cytogenetic characterization. Histopathology 1992;21:155–60. Yokozaki H, Kyo E, Ochial A, Ito M, Ito H, Tabuchi J, et al. A monoclonal antibody capable of detecting new differentiation antigen of the stomach. Int J Cancer 1992;50:523–7. Thoenes W, Störkel S, Rumpelt H-J, Moll RT, Baum HP, Werner S. Chromophobe cell renal carcinoma and its variants – a report on 32 cases. J Pathol 1988;155:277–87. Bonsib SM, Lager DJ. Chromophobe cell carcinoma: analysis of five cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:260–7. Tickoo SK, Amin MB, Zarbo RJ. Colloidal iron staining in renal epithelial neoplasms, including chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Emphasis on technique and patterns of staining. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22:419–24. Akhtar M, Kardar H, Linjawi T, McClintock J, Ali MA. Chromophobe cell carcinoma of the kidney. A clinicopathological study of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19:1245–56. Tickoo SK, Amin MB, Linden MD, Lee MW, Zarbo RJ. Antimitochondrial antibody (113–1) in the differential diagnosis of granular renal cell tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:922–30.
13. Pitz S, Moll R, Störkel S, Thoenes W. Expression of intermediate filament proteins in subtypes of renal cell carcinomas and in renal oncocytomas. Distinction of two classes of renal cell tumors. Lab Invest 1987;56:642–53. 14. Daniel WW Jr, Hartman GW, Witten DM, Farrow GM, Kelalis PP. Calcified renal masses. A review of ten years experience at Mayo Clinic. Radiology 1972;103:503–8. 15. Haddad FS, Shah IA, Manné RK, Costantino JM, Somsin AA. Renal cell carcinoma insulated in the renal capsule with calcification and ossification. Urol Int 1993;51:97–101. 16. Hamid Y, Poller DN. Spontaneous regression of renal cell carcinoma: a pitfall in diagnosis of renal lesions. J Clin Pathol 1998;51:334–6. 17. Olsen S. Tumours of the Kidney and Urinary Tract. Copenhagen: Munksgaad 1984. 18. Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, Bugert P, Cooper CS, Delahunt B, et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumors. J Pathol 1997;183:131–3. 19. Kovacs G, Wilkens L, Papp T, DeRiese W. Differentiation between papillary and nonpapillary renal cell carcinomas by DNA analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:527–30. 20. Gnarra JR, Tory K, Weng Y, Schmidt L, Wei MH, Li H, et al. Mutation of the VHL tumor suppressor gene in renal carcinoma. Nature Genet 1994;7:85–90. 21. Bugert P, Kovacs G. Molecular differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinomas by microsatellite analysis. Am J Pathol 1996;149:2081–8.
