The new category of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma has been included into the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma comprises Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma harboring TFE3 gene fusions and t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma harboring TFEB gene fusion. At the beginning, they were recognized in childhood; nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these neoplasms can occur in adults as well. In the nineties, among Xp11 renal cell carcinoma, ASPL, PRCC, and SFPQ (PSF) were the first genes recognized as partners in TFE3 rearrangement. Recently, many other genes have been identified, and a wide spectrum of morphologies has been described. For this reason, the diagnosis may be challenging based on the histology, and the differential diagnosis includes the most common renal cell neoplasms and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney. During the last decades, many efforts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers to reach the right diagnosis. To date, staining for PAX8, cathepsin K, and melanogenesis markers are the most useful identifiers. However, the diagnosis requires the demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) is considered the gold standard. The outcome of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma is highly variable, with some patients surviving decades with indolent disease and others dying rapidly of progressive disease. Despite most instances of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma having an indolent clinical course, a few published cases demonstrate aggressive behavior. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been described in connection with t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Those tumors appear to be associated with a more aggressive clinical course. For the aggressive cases of MiT family translocation carcinoma, the optimal therapy remains to be determined; however, new target therapies seem to be promising, and the search for predictive markers is mandatory.

Immune evasion is a key strategy adopted by tumor cells to escape the immune system while promoting their survival and metastatic spreading. Indeed, several mechanisms have been developed by tumors to inhibit immune responses. PD-1 is a cell surface inhibitory receptor, which plays a major physiological role in the maintenance of peripheral tolerance. In pathological conditions, activation of the PD-1/PD-Ls signaling pathway may block immune cell activation, a mechanism exploited by tumor cells to evade the antitumor immune control. Targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis has represented a major breakthrough in cancer treatment. Indeed, the success of PD-1 blockade immunotherapies represents an unprecedented success in the treatment of different cancer types. To improve the therapeutic efficacy, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms regulating PD-1 expression and signaling in the tumor context is required. We provide an overview of the current knowledge of PD-1 expression on both tumor-infiltrating T and NK cells, summarizing the recent evidence on the stimuli regulating its expression. We also highlight perspectives and limitations of the role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive marker, discuss well-established and novel potential approaches to improve patient selection and clinical outcome and summarize current indications for anti-PD1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Context.—The diagnosis of primary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) with both papillary architecture and cells with clear cytoplasm can be diagnostically challenging for practicing pathologists. The 4 main neoplasms in the differential diagnosis are clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, clear cell papillary RCC, and Xp11 translocation RCC. Accurate diagnosis has both prognostic and therapeutic implications. Objective.—To highlight the helpful cytomorphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic features of each of these entities to enable reproducible classification. Data Sources.—Published peer-reviewed literature was reviewed, accompanied by the authors' personal experiences. Conclusions.—Key morphologic clues and a focused immunohistochemical panel, including CK7, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR), TFE3, cathepsin K, and carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), now allow most resected RCCs with papillary architecture and clear cells to be accurately classified. In other cases, cytogenetic and molecular findings can establish the diagnosis. Despite these tools, some RCCs with papillary architecture and clear cells do not fit into any of the described entities and currently remain unclassified.