Clinicopathological and molecular comparison of eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma and TFEB ‐amplified renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive study of 15 cases
- 1Department of Pathology The University of Chicago Chicago Illinois USA
Abstract
Aims: Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC‐RCC) and TFEB‐amplified renal cell carcinoma (TFEB‐amplified RCC, a subset of TFEB‐altered RCC) are rare eosinophilic renal cell tumours that can be difficult to distinguish on the basis of morphology and immunohistochemistry alone. In this study, we compared the clinicopathological and molecular features of these entities to identify distinguishing characteristics.
Methods and results: Nine cases of ESC‐RCC and six cases of TFEB‐amplified RCC from our institutional archives were evaluated for clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features. Despite morphological overlap, each entity exhibited somewhat distinctive features. ESC‐RCC frequently exhibited solid and cystic architecture with tightly packed tubules, flocculent to coarsely granular cytoplasm with basophilic stippling and prominent admixed macrophages. In comparison, TFEB‐amplified RCC more frequently demonstrated solid growth of pseudopapillae and loose tubules, dense eosinophilic granular cytoplasm without basophilic stippling, focally apical nuclei and extracellular magenta globules. However, neither morphology nor immunohistochemistry was sufficiently specific to completely distinguish these entities. Ancillary molecular testing identified pathogenic TSC1 or TSC2 gene variants in ESC‐RCC and TFEB gene locus amplification in TFEB‐amplified RCC.
Conclusions: Although ESC‐RCC and TFEB‐RCC share overlapping morphological and immunohistochemical features, each demonstrates somewhat characteristic histological findings. Definitive distinction requires molecular testing to identify the underlying molecular alterations. As molecular testing assumes an increasingly important role in RCC diagnosis and classification, recognition of these rare entities and their overlapping and distinguishing features is essential for appropriate testing and accurate diagnosis.
Related
- Spatial Molecular Signatures of Canine Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma with and Without Locoregional Metastasis with Cross-Species Comparison to Human Samples
- Clinicopathological Machine Learning Models for Mortality Risk Prediction in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of the The Cancer Genome Atlas Head-Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (TCGA-HNSC) Cohort
- Association of VCP/p97 Expression with Clinicopathological Features and Overall Survival in Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma
- Potential Influence of NUCB2 Genetic Variants on the Clinicopathological Features of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- Comprehensive proteomic characterization of the esophageal String Test identifies a luminal protein signature associated with eosinophilic esophagitis.
BibTeX
@article{zullow2026clinicopathological,
title = {{Clinicopathological and molecular comparison of eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma and TFEB ‐amplified renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive study of 15 cases}},
author = {Hayley Zullow and Melissa Y. Tjota and Jung Woo Kwon and Tatjana Antic},
journal = {Histopathology},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1111/his.70261},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/his.70261},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinicopathological and molecular comparison of eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma and TFEB ‐amplified renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive study of 15 cases
AU - Hayley Zullow
AU - Melissa Y. Tjota
AU - Jung Woo Kwon
AU - Tatjana Antic
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/13
JO - Histopathology
DO - 10.1111/his.70261
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/his.70261
AB - Aims: Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC‐RCC) and TFEB‐amplified renal cell carcinoma (TFEB‐amplified RCC, a subset of TFEB‐altered RCC) are rare eosinophilic renal cell tumours that can be difficult to distinguish on the basis of morphology and immunohistochemistry alone. In this study, we compared the clinicopathological and molecular features of these entities to identify distinguishing characteristics. Methods and results: Nine cases of ESC‐RCC and six cases of TFEB‐amplified RCC from our institutional archives were evaluated for clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features. Despite morphological overlap, each entity exhibited somewhat distinctive features. ESC‐RCC frequently exhibited solid and cystic architecture with tightly packed tubules, flocculent to coarsely granular cytoplasm with basophilic stippling and prominent admixed macrophages. In comparison, TFEB‐amplified RCC more frequently demonstrated solid growth of pseudopapillae and loose tubules, dense eosinophilic granular cytoplasm without basophilic stippling, focally apical nuclei and extracellular magenta globules. However, neither morphology nor immunohistochemistry was sufficiently specific to completely distinguish these entities. Ancillary molecular testing identified pathogenic TSC1 or TSC2 gene variants in ESC‐RCC and TFEB gene locus amplification in TFEB‐amplified RCC. Conclusions: Although ESC‐RCC and TFEB‐RCC share overlapping morphological and immunohistochemical features, each demonstrates somewhat characteristic histological findings. Definitive distinction requires molecular testing to identify the underlying molecular alterations. As molecular testing assumes an increasingly important role in RCC diagnosis and classification, recognition of these rare entities and their overlapping and distinguishing features is essential for appropriate testing and accurate diagnosis.
SN - 0309-0167
SN - 1365-2559
ER -