Reappraisal of Morphologic Differences Between Renal Medullary Carcinoma, Collecting Duct Carcinoma, and Fumarate Hydratase–deficient Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal medullary carcinomas (RMCs) and collecting duct carcinomas (CDCs) are rare subsets of lethal high-stage, high-grade distal nephron-related adenocarcinomas with a predilection for the renal medullary region. Recent findings have established an emerging group of fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient tumors related to hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC-RCCs) syndrome within this morphologic spectrum. Recently developed, reliable ancillary testing has enabled consistent separation between these tumor types. Here, we present the clinicopathologic features and differences in the morphologic patterns between RMC, CDC, and FH-deficient RCC in consequence of these recent developments. This study included a total of 100 cases classified using contemporary criteria and ancillary tests. Thirty-three RMCs (SMARCB1/INI1-deficient, hemoglobinopathy), 38 CDCs (SMARCB1/INI1-retained), and 29 RCCs defined by the FH-deficient phenotype (FH/2SC or FH/2SC with FH mutation, regardless of HLRCC syndromic stigmata/history) were selected. The spectrum of morphologic patterns was critically evaluated, and the differences between the morphologic patterns present in the 3 groups were analyzed statistically. Twenty-five percent of cases initially diagnosed as CDC were reclassified as FH-deficient RCC on the basis of our contemporary diagnostic approach. Among the different overlapping morphologic patterns, sieve-like/cribriform and reticular/yolk sac tumor-like patterns favored RMCs, whereas intracystic papillary and tubulocystic patterns favored FH-deficient RCC. The tubulopapillary pattern favored both CDCs and FH-deficient RCCs, and the multinodular infiltrating papillary pattern favored CDCs. Infiltrating glandular and solid sheets/cords/nested patterns were not statistically different among the 3 groups. Viral inclusion-like macronucleoli, considered as a hallmark of HLRCC-RCCs, were observed significantly more frequently in FH-deficient RCCs. Despite the overlapping morphology found among these clinically aggressive infiltrating high-grade adenocarcinomas of the kidney, reproducible differences in morphology emerged between these categories after rigorous characterization. Finally, we recommend that definitive diagnosis of CDC should only be made if RMC and FH-deficient RCC are excluded.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".