Section E6.7-6.12 of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Technical Laboratory Standards: Cytogenomic studies of acquired chromosomal abnormalities in solid tumors

Widespread clinical laboratory implementation of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing has highlighted the importance and potential benefits of standardizing the interpretation and reporting of molecular results among laboratories. A multidisciplinary working group tasked to assess the current status of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing and establish standardized consensus classification, annotation, interpretation, and reporting conventions for somatic sequence variants was convened by the Association for Molecular Pathology with liaison representation from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. On the basis of the results of professional surveys, literature review, and the Working Group's subject matter expert consensus, a four-tiered system to categorize somatic sequence variations based on their clinical significances is proposed: tier I, variants with strong clinical significance; tier II, variants with potential clinical significance; tier III, variants of unknown clinical significance; and tier IV, variants deemed benign or likely benign. Cancer genomics is a rapidly evolving field; therefore, the clinical significance of any variant in therapy, diagnosis, or prognosis should be reevaluated on an ongoing basis. Reporting of genomic variants should follow standard nomenclature, with testing method and limitations clearly described. Clinical recommendations should be concise and correlate with histological and clinical findings.

The consistent and unambiguous description of sequence variants is essential to report and exchange information on the analysis of a genome. In particular, DNA diagnostics critically depends on accurate and standardized description and sharing of the variants detected. The sequence variant nomenclature system proposed in 2000 by the Human Genome Variation Society has been widely adopted and has developed into an internationally accepted standard. The recommendations are currently commissioned through a Sequence Variant Description Working Group (SVD-WG) operating under the auspices of three international organizations: the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS), the Human Variome Project (HVP), and the Human Genome Organization (HUGO). Requests for modifications and extensions go through the SVD-WG following a standard procedure including a community consultation step. Version numbers are assigned to the nomenclature system to allow users to specify the version used in their variant descriptions. Here, we present the current recommendations, HGVS version 15.11, and briefly summarize the changes that were made since the 2000 publication. Most focus has been on removing inconsistencies and tightening definitions allowing automatic data processing. An extensive version of the recommendations is available online, at http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen.

The MiT subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFC, and MiTF. Gene fusions involving two of these transcription factors have been identified in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The Xp11 translocation RCCs were first officially recognized in the 2004 WHO renal tumor classification, and harbor gene fusions involving TFE3. The t(6;11) RCCs harbor a specific Alpha-TFEB gene fusion and were first officially recognized in the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia. These two subtypes of translocation RCC have many similarities. Both were initially described in and disproportionately involve young patients, though adult translocation RCC may overall outnumber pediatric cases. Both often have unusual and distinctive morphologies; the Xp11 translocation RCCs frequently have clear cells with papillary architecture and abundant psammomatous bodies, while the t(6;11) RCCs frequently have a biphasic appearance with both large and small epithelioid cells and nodules of basement membrane material. However, the morphology of these two neoplasms can overlap, with one mimicking the other. Both of these RCCs underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical markers like cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) relative to most other RCCs. Unlike other RCCs, both frequently express the cysteine protease cathepsin k and often express melanocytic markers like HMB45 and Melan A. Finally, TFE3 and TFEB have overlapping functional activity as these two transcription factors frequently heterodimerize and bind to the same targets. Therefore, on the basis of clinical, morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic similarities, the 2013 ISUP Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia grouped these two neoplasms together under the heading of "MiT family translocation RCC." This review summarizes our current knowledge of these recently described RCCs.