Imaging Characteristics of Pediatric Renal Cell Carcinoma and Wilms Tumor and Its Impact on Their Managementand Outcomes A Case Report and Review of Literature
Main Article Content
Keywords
PET, Pediatric, Renal cell carcinoma, Translocation, Wilms tumor
Abstract
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in children is rare, comprising only 1.4–6.3% of pediatric renal tumors. Differentiating RCC from Wilms tumor, the most common pediatric renal tumor is crucial due to differing management and prognosis. Imaging characteristics, such as the presence of calcifications and cystic components, guided the decision to perform surgery without pretreatment biopsy, reducing the risk of needle tract seeding. Translocation-associated RCC is the most common subtype in children, and surgical resection remains the cornerstone of treatment. Long-term follow-up is essential due to the potential for late recurrences. We are reporting the details of a 4-year-old boy, who presented with a 15-day history of fever and abdominal distension, accompanied by a ballotable mass in the right lumbar region. Imaging studies, including a CT scan, revealed a large complex cystic mass in the right kidney, consistent with Bosniak category IV, and enlarged paraaortic nodes. Further evaluation with an FDG-PET scan confirmed the uptake only in the right kidney. The child underwent a right radical nephrectomy with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Histopathology revealed translocation-associated RCC features, characterized by slender papillae, psammoma bodies, necrosis, and uniform epithelial cells with hyperchromatic nuclei. Immunohistochemistry showed positivity for markers including TEF3, keratin, and vimentin, with a KI-67 proliferation index of 10–20%. The final stage was pT2aN0, and the patient had an uneventful recovery, with no recurrence at 36 months of follow-up.
References
2. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA. World Health Organization classification of tumours; Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
3. Kontak JA, Campbell SC. Prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30:467–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00020-X
4. Indolfi P, Terenziani M, Casale F, Carli M, Bisogno G, Schiavetti A, et al. Renal cell carcinoma in children: A clinicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):530–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.02.072
5. Uchiyama M, Iwafuchi M, Yagi M, Iinuma Y, Ohtaki M, Tomita Y, et al. Treatment of childhood renal cell carcinoma with lymph node metastasis: Two cases and a review of literature. J Surg Oncol. 2000;75(4):266–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9098(200012)75:4%3C266::aid-jso8%3E3.0.co;2-h
6. Lowe LH, Isuani BH, Heller RM, Stein SM, Johnson JE, Navarro OM, et al. Pediatric renal masses: Wilms tumor and beyond. 2000;20(6):1585–603. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.6.g00nv051585
7. Geller JI, Dome JS. Local lymph node involvement does not predict poor outcome in pediatric renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101(7):1575–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20548
8. Vujanic GM, Kelsey A, Mitchell C, Shannon RS, Gornall P. The role of biopsy in the diagnosis of renal tumors of childhood: Results of the UKCCSG Wilms tumor study 3. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2003;40:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpo.10216
9. Perlman EJ. Pediatric renal cell carcinoma. Surg Pathol Clin. 2010;3(3):641–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2010.06.011
10. Aronson DC, Medary I, Finlay JL, Her HW, Exelby PR, La Quaglia MP. Renal cell carcinoma in childhood and adolescence: A retrospective survey for prognostic factors in 22 cases. J Pediatr Surg. 1996;31:183–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90344-9
11. Asanuma H, Nakai H, Takeda M, Shishido S, Tajima E, Kawamura T, et al. Renal cell carcinoma in children: Experience at a single institution in Japan. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1402–5.
12. Swartz MA, Karth J, Schneider DT, Rodriguez R, Beckwith JB, Perlman EJ. Renal medullary carcinoma: Clinical, pathologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic analysis with pathogenetic implications. Urology. 2002;60:1083–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02154-4
