Frequency and clinicopathologic features of renal low-grade oncocytic tumour and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour: reclassification of 605 eosinophilic tumours including patients managed with active surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Low-grade oncocytic tumour (LOT) and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour (EVT) are recently described emerging entities, which demonstrate distinct features but are not yet recognised as separate neoplasms in the fifth WHO classification. Published series to date have been largely multi-institutional and based on surgically resected tumours. This study aims to determine the frequency, clinicopathologic features and outcome of LOT and EVT in a single institutional series of oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms, including patients managed with active surveillance and non-surgical intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cases were identified from a consecutive institutional series of in-house renal tumours diagnosed on biopsy and/or nephrectomy (2003-2023). Tumours with a diagnosis or differential diagnosis of oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma or oncocytic neoplasm not otherwise specified (including LOT, EVT and tumours with overlapping hybrid features) were retrospectively reviewed and classified/reclassified.In total, 605 oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms were reviewed, among which 33 LOT (5.5%) and 5 EVT (0.8%) were identified. LOT were CK7+, CD117- and GATA3+ (94%). EVT were CD117+, CK7 focal+ (80%) and cathepsin K+ (80%). At the median follow-up of 34 months (range 2-253) and 56 months (range 8-90) for LOT and EVT, respectively, there was no evidence of recurrence following ablation/surgical resection, metastasis or death from disease for all patients, including the 22 managed with active surveillance (20 LOT and 2 EVT). CONCLUSIONS: LOT and EVT comprised a minority of oncocytic renal neoplasms in this series. We report a large institutional series including patients managed non-surgically, with no adverse outcome, adding to the existing literature indicating a benign outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".