Eosinophilic Solid and Cystic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Study of 18 Cases and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma is now defined in the 5th edition of the 2022 World Health Organization classification of urogenital tumors. OBJECTIVE.—: To perform morphologic, immunohistochemical, and preliminary genetic studies about this new entity in China for the purpose of understanding it better. DESIGN.—: The study includes 18 patients from a regional tertiary oncology center in northern China (Tianjin, China). We investigated the clinical and immunohistochemical features of these cases. RESULTS.—: The mean age of patients was 49.6 years, and the male to female ratio was 11:7. Macroscopically, 1 case had the classic cystic and solid appearance, whereas the others appeared purely solid. Microscopically, all 18 tumors shared a similar solid and focal macrocystic or microcystic growth pattern, and the cells were characterized by voluminous and eosinophilic cytoplasm, along with coarse amphophilic stippling. Immunohistochemically, most of the tumors had a predominant cytokeratin (CK) 20-positive feature, ranging from focal cytoplasmic staining to diffuse membranous accentuation. Initially, we separated these cases into different immunohistochemical phenotypes. Group 1 (7 of 18; 38.5%) was characterized by positive phospho-4EBP1 and phospho-S6, which can imply hyperactive mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling. Group 2 (4 of 18; 23%) was negative for NF2, probably implying a germline mutation of NF2. Group 3 (7 of 18; 38.5%) consisted of the remaining cases. One case had metastatic spread and exhibited an aggressive clinical course, and we detected cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutation in this case; other patients were alive and without disease progression. CONCLUSIONS.—: Our research proposes that eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma exhibits prototypical pathologic features with CK20 positivity and has aggressive potential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".