Eosinophilic, Solid, and Cystic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A unique renal neoplasm characterized by eosinophilic cytoplasm and solid and cystic growth was recently reported in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). We searched multiple institutional archives and consult files in an attempt to identify a sporadic counterpart. We identified 16 morphologically identical cases, all in women, without clinical features of TSC. The median age was 57 years (range, 31 to 75 y). Macroscopically, tumors were tan and had a solid and macrocystic (12) or only solid appearance (4). Average tumor size was 50 mm (median, 38.5 mm; range, 15 to 135 mm). Microscopically, the tumors showed solid areas admixed with variably sized macrocysts and microcysts that were lined by cells with a pronounced hobnail arrangement. The cells had voluminous eosinophilic cytoplasm with prominent granular cytoplasmic stippling and round to oval nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Scattered histiocytes and lymphocytes were invariably present. Thirteen of 16 patients were stage pT1; 2 were pT2, and 1 was pT3a. The cells demonstrated a distinct immunoprofile: nuclear PAX8 expression, predominant CK20-positive/CK7-negative phenotype, patchy AMACR staining, but no CD117 reactivity. Thirteen of 14 patients with follow-up were alive and without disease progression after 2 to 138 months (mean: 53 mo; median: 37.5 mo); 1 patient died of other causes. Although similar to a subset of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) seen in TSC, we propose that sporadic "eosinophilic, solid, and cystic RCC," which occurs predominantly in female individuals and is characterized by distinct morphologic features, predominant CK20-positive/CK7-negative immunophenotype, and indolent behavior, represents a novel subtype of RCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".