The Utility of ERBB4 and RB1 Immunohistochemistry in Distinguishing Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma From Renal Oncocytoma.

Objectives. Differentiating renal oncocytoma (RO) from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) can occasionally be challenging. We evaluated the expression of RB1 and ERBB4 in RO and ChRCC, and compared the immunohistochemistry (IHC) results to RB1 and ERBB4 gene abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Materials and Methods. Fifty-three kidney resections (ChRCC, n=28; RO, n=25) were stained for RB1 and ERBB4 IHC and FISH was performed to evaluate gene copy number analysis. Results. A loss of RB1 staining was identified in 64% (18/28) of ChRCCs, which was not found in any ROs (0/25; P <.001). FISH analysis revealed 36% (10/28) of ChRCCs contained a RB1 hemizygous deletion with a concordance of 56% (10/18) between the IHC and FISH findings. No RB1 gene copy number variations were detected in any of the ROs (0/25; P <.001) and retained expression of RB1 by IHC. ERBB4 showed cytoplasmic/membranous staining in all ROs and ChRCCs. However, 75% (21/28) of ChRCCs also contained nuclear positivity for ERBB4, which was uncommonly seen in ROs (3/25, 12%; P < .001). A hemizygous ERBB4 gene deletion was detected in 46% of ChRCCs (13/28), but none of the ROs (0/25; 0%). Loss of labeling by RB1 or nuclear staining for ERBB4 IHC identified 25 of 28 (89%) of ChRCCs. Conclusion. In summary, the loss of RB1 expression is a highly specific diagnostic biomarker in distinguishing ChRCC from RO. Nuclear ERBB4 expression also appears to be a sensitive diagnostic biomarker for ChRCC, albeit the mechanism is unknown.

The utility of MYC and FLT4 in the diagnosis and treatment of postradiation atypical vascular lesion and angiosarcoma of the breast.

Atypical vascular lesions (AVLs) and angiosarcomas (ASs) are well-recognized complications of radiotherapy for breast cancer. Early diagnosis may be challenging, particularly on small biopsies, and the treatment options are limited. Recently, MYC and sometimes FLT4 gene amplification has been reported in AS, but not in AVL, and FLT4 may be a target for therapy. We evaluated the MYC/FLT4 status in AVL and AS by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), determined its utility in differentiating these 2 entities in small biopsies, and ascertained the value of FLT4 as a potential marker for targeted therapy. Thirty-five vascular neoplasms were reviewed from 21 breast cancer patients who received radiotherapy (AVL, n = 18; AS, n = 17). MYC expression by IHC and/or gene amplification by FISH were identified in 13 (77%) of 17 ASs, but none of the AVL cases. Four patients had biopsies with follow-up excisions, of which 1 showed the morphology of an AVL on biopsy and AS on excision, both positive for MYC. Of 17 ASs, 3 (18%) showed strong and diffuse 3+ cytoplasmic FLT4 staining by IHC and FLT4 gene amplification by FISH. All 3 cases were coamplified for the MYC gene. Focal and weak FLT4 cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was present in 2 (12%) of 17 AVL cases and 12 (70%) of 17 AS cases. Although MYC is a valuable ancillary tool in distinguishing AS from AVL, FLT4 IHC may be used to screen for patients with FLT4 gene amplification who might benefit from targeted therapy, as only diffuse strong FLT4 immunoreactivity correlated with FLT4 gene amplification.