Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses: potential implications for renal mass biopsy.

PURPOSE Understanding the degree of phenotypic heterogeneity in a small renal mass may have implications for interpreting renal mass biopsy data. In this study we quantify nuclear grade heterogeneity in small renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS Our institutional renal mass database was queried for patients with T1a (less than 4 cm) renal masses stratified by the criteria of imaging diameter less than 2 cm or 2 cm or greater, clear cell or papillary histology, low grade (Fuhrman 1-2) or high grade (Fuhrman 3-4) with tissue available for review. Four consecutive specimens were chosen from each of the 8 strata for a total of 32. All specimens were reanalyzed and the highest Fuhrman grade present in each 10× powered field was recorded. A case was classified as heterogeneous if multiple grades were present and as discordant if the highest Fuhrman grade was present in less than 50% of the specimen. RESULTS A median of 5 slides (IQR 3.5-7.5) and 59, 10× powered fields (IQR 34-109) were examined per patient. Overall 26 samples (81.3%) were heterogeneous, including 15 of 16 (93.8%) high grade specimens. Among all cases 10 (31.3%) were discordant and of high grade specimens 4 (25%) were discordant. Median fraction of low grade tissue in high grade specimens was 38.9% (IQR 12.2-57.2). CONCLUSIONS The majority of small renal masses demonstrated considerable nuclear grade heterogeneity. The greatest degree of heterogeneity and discordance was observed in high grade tumors. One should consider these findings when interpreting renal mass biopsy data as the risk of under sampling high grade tumors may not be insignificant.

[1]  Paul Russo,et al.  Tumor size is associated with malignant potential in renal cell carcinoma cases. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[2]  I. Gill,et al.  The evolving presentation of renal carcinoma in the United States: trends from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[3]  M. Kattan,et al.  Incidence of benign lesions for clinically localized renal masses smaller than 7 cm in radiological diameter: influence of sex. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[4]  Recommendations for the reporting of surgically resected specimens of renal cell carcinoma: the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. , 2009, Human pathology.

[5]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Handling and Staging of Renal Cell Carcinoma: The International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus (ISUP) Conference Recommendations , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[6]  P. Taourel,et al.  Can renal biopsy accurately predict histological subtype and Fuhrman grade of renal cell carcinoma? , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[7]  J. Cheville,et al.  An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[8]  A. Evans,et al.  Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. , 2011, European urology.

[9]  T C Gasser,et al.  Intratumoral heterogeneity of von Hippel-Lindau gene deletions in renal cell carcinoma detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 1998, Cancer research.

[10]  Y. Neuzillet,et al.  Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[11]  M. Remzi,et al.  Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. , 2012, European urology.

[12]  S. Fuhrman,et al.  Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma , 1982, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  T. Lebret,et al.  Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Mesut Remzi,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. , 2008, European urology.

[15]  David C. Miller,et al.  Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[16]  J. Cheville,et al.  The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading System for Renal Cell Carcinoma and Other Prognostic Parameters , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[17]  Michael A S Jewett,et al.  Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[18]  P. A. Futreal,et al.  Genomic architecture and evolution of clear cell renal cell carcinomas defined by multiregion sequencing , 2014, Nature Genetics.

[19]  J. Cheville,et al.  Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma , 2003, Cancer.

[20]  R. Figlin,et al.  Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  J. Patard,et al.  A proposal for reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. , 2009, European urology.

[22]  P. A. Futreal,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.