Classic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Incur a Larger Number of Chromosomal Losses Than Seen in the Eosinophilic Subtype

• Published in: Cancers Vol. 11; no. 10; p. 1492
• Main Authors: Ohashi, Riuko, Schraml, Peter, Angori, Silvia, Batavia, Aashil A., Rupp, Niels J., Ohe, Chisato, Otsuki, Yoshiro, Kawasaki, Takashi, Kobayashi, Hiroshi, Kobayashi, Kazuhiro, Miyazaki, Tatsuhiko, Shibuya, Hiroyuki, Usuda, Hiroyuki, Umezu, Hajime, Fujishima, Fumiyoshi, Furusato, Bungo, Osakabe, Mitsumasa, Sugai, Tamotsu, Kuroda, Naoto, Tsuzuki, Toyonori, Nagashima, Yoji, Ajioka, Yoichi, Moch, Holger
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 03.10.2019; MDPI
• Subjects: Cell membranes; Chromosome 1; Copy number; Cytoplasm; Genomes; Genomic instability; Genotype & phenotype; Genotypes; Kidney cancer; Leukocytes (eosinophilic); Medical prognosis; Mitochondrial DNA; Mutation; Phenotypes; Regression analysis; Renal cell carcinoma; Sex chromosomes; Tumors
• DOI: 10.3390/cancers11101492
• ISSN: 2072-6694

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a renal tumor subtype with a good prognosis, characterized by multiple chromosomal copy number variations (CNV). The World Health Organization (WHO) chRCC classification guidelines define a classic and an eosinophilic variant. Large cells with reticular cytoplasm and prominent cell membranes (pale cells) are characteristic for classic chRCC. Classic and eosinophilic variants were defined in 42 Swiss chRCCs, 119 Japanese chRCCs and in whole-slide digital images of 66 chRCCs from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) kidney chromophobe (KICH) dataset. 32 of 42 (76.2%) Swiss chRCCs, 90 of 119 (75.6%) Japanese chRCCs and 53 of 66 (80.3%) TCGA-KICH were classic chRCCs. There was no survival difference between eosinophilic and classic chRCC in all three cohorts. To identify a genotype/phenotype correlation, we performed a genome-wide CNV analysis using Affymetrix OncoScan® CNV Assay (Affymetrix/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) in 33 Swiss chRCCs. TCGA-KICH subtypes were compared with TCGA CNV data. In the combined Swiss and TCGA-KICH cohorts, losses of chromosome 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, and 17 were significantly more frequent in classic chRCC (p < 0.05, each), suggesting that classic chRCC are characterized by higher chromosomal instability. This molecular difference justifies the definition of two chRCC variants. Absence of pale cells could be used as main histological criterion to define the eosinophilic variant of chRCC.