Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2020  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 405--411

Diagnostic utility of amylase α-1A, MOC 31, and CD 82 in renal oncocytoma versus chromophobe renal cell carcinoma


Nehal S Abouhashem1, Eman H Abdelbary1, Mohamed M H. Abdalla2, Mohamed El-Shazly3 
1 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt
2 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt
3 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Nehal S Abouhashem
Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University
Egypt

Objective: Renal oncocytoma (RO) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) originate from the same cell origin, that is, the intercalated cells of the collecting duct.[1] In most cases, there are clear morphologic differences between RO and ChRCC; however, in some instances, overlapping features may be encountered and the differentiation between the two entities becomes difficult.[2] Several immunohistochemical markers with different expression patterns in ChRCC and RO have been described to rule out this dilemma. Materials and Methods: About 47 primary renal neoplasms that had been diagnosed as RO or ChRCC were submitted for immunohistochemical staining of amylase α-1A (AMY1A), MOC 31, and CD 82. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy have been analyzed. Results: AMY1A positivity was observed in all RO cases in our work with 91.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the diagnosis of RO. The PPV of its expression was (100%) and NPV (97.2%) with a diagnostic accuracy of 97.9%. A significant high expression of MOC 31 was observed in ChRCC compared to its expression in RO with a statistical significance (P < 0.001). In addition, we obtained 82.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity of MOC 31 expression in the diagnosis of ChRCC. The positive predictive value (PPV) was (96.7%), negative predictive value (NPV) (64.7%) with diagnostic accuracy (85.1%). In our studied cases, we detected positive immunoexpression of CD 82 in 10 cases (83.3%) of ChRCC. However, it was lost in all RO cases (100%). CD 82 sensitivity and specificity in differentiating ChRCC from RO were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Conclusion: We propose MOC 31 and CD 82 as negative immunostains for RO, as these markers are commonly expressed in ChRCC. In conjunction with AMY1A strong immunopositivity in RO cases, we provide a triple panel of biomarkers (AMY1A, MOC 31, and CD 82) for the distinction between RO and ChRCC.


How to cite this article:
Abouhashem NS, Abdelbary EH, H. Abdalla MM, El-Shazly M. Diagnostic utility of amylase α-1A, MOC 31, and CD 82 in renal oncocytoma versus chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2020;63:405-411


How to cite this URL:
Abouhashem NS, Abdelbary EH, H. Abdalla MM, El-Shazly M. Diagnostic utility of amylase α-1A, MOC 31, and CD 82 in renal oncocytoma versus chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Indian J Pathol Microbiol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21 ];63:405-411
Available from: https://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2020;volume=63;issue=3;spage=405;epage=411;aulast=Abouhashem;type=0