4.3 Article

Thyroid-Like Follicular Carcinoma of the Kidney One Case Report and Review of the Literature

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 796-804

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP6P0STAAHOTTG

Keywords

Thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of kidney; Renal cell carcinoma; Kidney tumor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney continues to confound the practicing pathologist with its close resemblance to the follicular variant of thyroid carcinoma, as well as other benign and malignant entities. Our goal is to expand the knowledge of this rare renal cell carcinoma subtype, which is morphologically similar to follicular carcinoma of the thyroid but lacks expression of characteristic thyroid immunohistochemical markers such as TTF-1 and thyroglobulin. Methods: We evaluated the gross, histologic, immunohistochemical, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies of a new case and performed a comprehensive review of the literature. Results: The lesion was spongy and well-circumscribed. Microscopically it showed variably sized follicular structures, filled with abundant, deeply eosinophilic, colloid-like material. At the periphery, it displayed areas resembling metanephric adenoma and early stages of nephrogenesis. The tumor cells strongly expressed CK7, PAX-8, PAX-2, vimentin, EMA, and CK19 immunostains. Other markers, such as CD10, RCC, HBME-1, thyroglobulin, and TTF-1, were not immunoreactive. The tumor was negative for trison2y of both 7 and 17 and showed borderline monosomies (losses) of both chromosomes in FISH studies. Conclusions: Five years of preoperative observation and lack of recurrence bring further insight into the slow progressive nature of this neoplasm and support a low malignant potential. Proper identification is important to secure adequate treatment and follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available