Objective: Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) based on a liquid-based preparation is a safe and valuable diagnostic tool. However, due to unfamiliarity with this method and the considerably altered morphology that is associated with it, diagnosing renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from this type of preparation remains a challenge for cytopathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytomorphological characteristics of SurePath™ (SP)-based preparations compared with conventional smear (CS), and also the role of SP-based FNAC in the diagnosis of clear-cell RCC (CRCC), the most common primary renal malignancy. Study Design: Ex vivo FNAC of both tumors and normal renal parenchyma was prepared from 73 cases. Comparative cytomorphological analysis between liquid-based cytology (LBC) and CS as well as Fuhrman nuclear grading (FNG) was carried out. Immunocytochemistry was performed from normal and CRCC cytology specimens. Results: Normal renal cytology (NRC) showed no significant morphological differences between LBC and CS. For CRCC, LBC showed small, fragmented cell clusters, a 3-dimensional configuration, distinct cytoplasmic vacuoles, and irregular nuclear contours when compared with CS. FNG was overgraded with LBC compared to with CS. AMACR was the most valuable immunocytochemical marker for distinguishing CRCC from NRC. Conclusion: Once cytopathologists become familiar with the altered cytomorphological features of CRCC, FNAC, along with immunocytochemistry, may prove helpful for diagnosis.

Keywords:
Fine-needle aspiration cytology, Liquid-based cytology, SurePathࡊ, Fuhrman nuclear grading, Immunocytochemistry, Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma
1.
Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Patard JJ, Mulders PF, Sinescu IC: EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 2010;58:398-406.
2.
Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, Zhou M, Novick AC, Campbell SC: Renal mass biopsy - a renaissance? J Urol 2008;179:20-27.
3.
Lim A, O'Neil B, Heilbrun ME, Dechet C, Lowrance WT: The contemporary role of renal mass biopsy in the management of small renal tumors. Front Oncol 2012;2:106.
4.
Park SY, Park BK, Kim CK, Kwon GY: Ultrasound-guided core biopsy of small renal masses: diagnostic rate and limitations. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013;24:90-96.
5.
Cristallini EG, Paganelli C, Bolis GB: Role of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the assessment of renal masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:32-35.
6.
Cajulis RS, Katz RL, Dekmezian R, el-Naggar A, Ro JY: Fine needle aspiration biopsy of renal cell carcinoma. Cytologic parameters and their concordance with histology and flow cytometric data. Acta Cytol 1993;37:367-372.
7.
Al Nazer M, Mourad WA: Successful grading of renal-cell carcinoma in fine-needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:223-226.
8.
Bishop JA, Hosler GA, Kulesza P, Erozan YS, Ali SZ: Fine-needle aspiration of renal cell carcinoma: is accurate Fuhrman grading possible on cytologic material? Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:168-171.
9.
Renshaw AA, Lee KR, Madge R, Granter SR: Accuracy of fine needle aspiration in distinguishing subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Acta Cytol 1997;41:987-994.
10.
Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C: Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6:655-663.
11.
Syrjanen K, Hjelt L: Grading of human renal adenocarcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1978;12:49-55.
12.
Banyra O, Tarchynets M, Shulyak A: Renal cell carcinoma: how to hit the targets? Cent European J Urol 2014;66:394-404.
13.
Ficarra V, Novara G: Editorial comment on: Cytological punctures in diagnosis of renal tumours: a study on accuracy and reproducibility. Eur Urol 2009;55:196.
14.
Kummerlin IP, Smedts F, ten Kate FJ, Horn T, Algaba F, Trias I, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP: Cytological punctures in the diagnosis of renal tumours: a study on accuracy and reproducibility. Eur Urol 2009;55:187-195.
15.
Fadda G, Rossi ED: Liquid-based cytology in fine-needle aspiration biopsies of the thyroid gland. Acta Cytol 2011;55:389-400.
16.
Jung CK, Lee A, Jung ES, Choi YJ, Jung SL, Lee KY: Split sample comparison of a liquid-based method and conventional smears in thyroid fine needle aspiration. Acta Cytol 2008;52:313-319.
17.
Hoda RS: Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:621-634.
18.
Ryu HS, Park IA, Park SY, Jung YY, Park SH, Shin HC: A pilot study evaluating liquid-based fine needle aspiration cytology of breast lesions: a cytomorphological comparison of SurePath(R) liquid-based preparations and conventional smears. Acta Cytol 2013;57:391-399.
19.
Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B: Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:177-184.
20.
Holm-Nielsen P, Pallesen G: Expression of segment-specific antigens in the human nephron and in renal epithelial tumors. APMIS Suppl 1988;4:48-55.
21.
Yang XJ, Tan MH, Kim HL, et al: A molecular classification of papillary renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2005;65:5628-5637.
22.
Molinie V, Balaton A, Rotman S, Mansouri D, De Pinieux I, Homsi T, Guillou L: Alpha-methyl CoA racemase expression in renal cell carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2006;37:698-703.
23.
Szponar A, Beothe T, Kovacs G: How useful is alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of kidney cancers? Histopathology 2010;56:263-265.
24.
Allory Y, Bazille C, Vieillefond A, Molinie V, Cochand-Priollet B, Cussenot O, Callard P, Sibony M: Profiling and classification tree applied to renal epithelial tumours. Histopathology 2008;52:158-166.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.