Background: Fine needle aspiration (FNA) of renal masses can distinguish between benign and malignant neoplasms in 73–94% of cases. Previous studies suggested the correct subclassification of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) by cytomorphology can be achieved in up to 80% of cases. However, as RCCs become increasingly subclassified by molecular signatures, correct subclassification based on cytology alone is increasingly difficult. Design: Two FNA passes (2 stained with Diff-Quik® and 2 with the Papanicolaou method) were performed on all fresh nephrectomy specimens for a 1-year period. There were 30 cases in this study, with 29 primary renal tumors and 1 case of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. Each case was assigned a random number and came with 2 slides (1 from each staining method). Eight cytopathologists were asked to provide a diagnosis and the World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) grading if applicable. Fleiss’ Kappa and Cohen’s Kappa equations were used to look at inter-rater variability. Results: When compared to the surgical pathology diagnosis, the average percent correct diagnosis for all cytopathologist was 35%. Chromophobe RCCs had the best average percent accuracy at 72% followed by clearcell RCC at 48%. Average accuracy for grading RCCs was 40%. Inter-rater variability among the cytopathologists for all RCC diagnoses was fair with a Fleiss’ Kappa coefficient of 0.28. For the WHO/ISUP grade, the weighted coefficient for each pathologist ranged from 0.11 to 0.45, ranging from fair to moderate, respectively. Conclusions: Renal tumors are difficult to classify on cytopathology alone. Core needle biopsy and ancillary studies are necessary if diagnosis will change management.

Keywords:
Fine needle aspiration, Renal cancer, Interpretation of cytological features according to clinical and molecular genetic data
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
2021
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.