Re-evaluation of 33 unclassified' eosinophilic renal cell carcinomas in young patients

AimsWe sought to determine if some unclassified renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) in children and young adults that are characterised by predominantly eosinophilic cytoplasm are related to the recently described succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient RCC, fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient RCC or eosinophilic solid and cystic (ESC) RCC. Methods and resultsWe reviewed 33 unclassified RCCs with predominantly eosinophilic cytoplasm in patients aged 35years or younger. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for SDHB, FH and CK20 (a marker of ESC) was performed in all cases. IHC for 2-succinocysteine (2SC) was performed on RCC with loss of FH labelling. Four RCC (12%) (median age 18years) demonstrated loss of FH labelling as well as aberrant 2SC labelling, and were thus classified as FH-deficient RCCs. Importantly, none of these cases demonstrated the characteristic macronucleoli typical of FH-deficient RCC. Eight RCC (24%) (median age 20.5years) demonstrated loss of SDHB and were reclassified as SDH-deficient RCCs. Importantly, only four of eight SDH-deficient RCC demonstrated the characteristic cytoplasmic vacuoles and inclusions of typical SDH-deficient RCC. Ten RCC (30%) (median age 27years) were reclassified as ESC RCCs. Four of 10 ESC RCC were multifocal (one bilateral), four of 10 ESC RCC occurred in males and one patient presented with liver and lung metastases, all not described previously in ESC. Eleven RCC (33%) remained unclassified. ConclusionsPathologists should have a low threshold for performing FH, SDHB and CK20 IHC when confronted with unclassified eosinophilic RCC or oncocytoma' in young patients.