The most constant and distinctive histologic feature was the presence of cytoplasmic vacuoles and inclusion-like spaces (Figs. 3C, D). These contained either pale eosinophilic fluid or flocculent material. In most cases, these inclusions were readily identified throughout the tumor, but in some cases, particularly in those with higher-grade nuclei, these cytoplasmic inclusions were subtle and were only identified focally after a thorough search of multiple sections (Fig. 5). Non-neoplastic tubules or glomeruli were frequently entrapped at the periphery of the neoplasm (Fig. 4). Intratumoral mast cells were commonly highlighted with c-KIT IHC but were not appreciable as a conspicuous finding on routine hematoxylin and eosin sections. Allowing for the secondary effects of the tumor, the adjacent non-neoplastic kidney was normal, and no dysplastic or precursor lesions were identified in the adjacent renal parenchyma.
In the 5 tumors with ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3 nuclei, which were still recognizable as SDH-deficient renal carcinomas, in addition to prominent nucleoli, the neoplastic cells in the higher-grade areas acquired darker and coarser chromatin and more dense eosinophilic (rather than flocculent) cytoplasm. The nuclei in these areas were about 2 times larger than the nuclei in low-grade areas and demonstrated oval to slightly elongated shape, with irregular nuclear outlines. In some areas these tumors lost their nested architecture and commonly grew as solid sheets, occasionally with a very focal abortive papillary architecture.
Three cases demonstrated frank sarcomatoid transformation, with ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 4. The sarcomatoid areas were composed of pleomorphic spindled cells essentially indistinguishable from other high-grade sarcomatoid renal carcinomas. In 2 of the cases with sarcomatoid change, the sarcomatoid areas were in direct continuity with areas showing the stereotypical low-grade morphology (including ISUP nucleolar [nuclear] grade 2 nuclei), indicating true dedifferentiation rather than the existence of a different tumor type. In the other case with areas of sarcomatoid transformation, the entire tumor was high grade (either grade 3 or grade 4 nuclei). However, even in this case intracytoplasmic inclusions, albeit subtle, were identified after a search of multiple slides.
Although fibrosis, hyalinization, and hemorrhage were not uncommon, true coagulative necrosis was only found in 4 tumors—all ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3 or 4.
Only 2 of 36 (6%) cases lacked any areas with typical morphologic features or cytoplasmic inclusions and would not have been recognizable as SDH-deficient renal carcinomas on the basis of morphology. These cases, illustrated in Figure 6, were previously reported by Miettinen et al42 and identified by screening a large cohort by IHC rather than triaging IHC on the basis of morphology.42 In 1 case, the morphology was that of a typical clear cell renal carcinoma, ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3. In this case, only 1 block was available for review. In the second case, the morphology was in keeping with papillary renal carcinoma type 2, ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3. In this case, 4 blocks were available for review, all of which demonstrated similar histology.
All cases demonstrated negative staining for SDHB in all neoplastic cells (which was considered an inclusion criterion for the study). All cases also showed preserved positive staining for SDHA. At least focal positive staining for PAX8 was found in all cases. All but 1 case (96%) demonstrated at least focal reactivity for EMA, which was often quite limited, in some cases involving <1% of neoplastic cells, and commonly restricted to the apical border of cells. Only 3 of 25 cases (12%) demonstrated positive staining for CK7, and this staining was focal in 2 cases. Immunoreactivity for other markers was not specific. It is noteworthy that 68% of the cases demonstrated completely negative staining for all cytokeratins. IHC for c-KIT was negative in 96% of cases but did highlight scattered intratumor mast cells in many tumors.
Of the previously reported cases, 9 had undergone germline molecular testing and were found to harbor a pathogenic mutation in SDHB (8 cases) or SDHC (1 case)—mutation data previously reported.4,8,12,16,17,40 Of the previously unpublished cases, genetic testing was performed for SDHB in 8 patients, and in all of them a pathogenic germline mutation was identified. That is all 17 patients with SDH-deficient renal carcinoma who have undergone testing were found to harbor a germline mutation of 1 of the components of the mitochondrial complex 2 (16 SDHB, 1 SDHC, and none in SDHA or SDHD).
Morphologic Predictors of Metastasis
A total of 9 patients with pathologic material available for histologic review developed metastatic disease (6 previously reported and 3 new patients). Four of these patients died of metastatic disease at a mean of 18 months after initial presentation, all of whom had an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade of 3 or 4 at presentation, and 3 of whom had coagulative necrosis. The other patient with coagulative necrosis was known to have metastatic disease but had no further follow-up information available. Two patients were alive with metastatic disease, 132 months (11 y) and 368 months (30.7 y) after initial presentation. One of these 2 patients showed increased cytologic atypia and an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3 but lacked frank sarcomatoid change and subsequently developed biopsy-proven metastases in the spleen at 66 months (5.5 y) and the liver at 108 months (9 y) after initial presentation. The other patient showed only typical low-grade features in the initial resection with an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade of 2, but then developed biopsy-proven vertebral metastasis 30 years later. The metastasis showed increased cytologic atypia with an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3 and an abortive papillary architecture but lacked sarcomatoid differentiation (Fig. 7). Importantly, at the time of diagnosis of the metastasis, this patient was found to have a solid tumor on diagnostic imaging in her contralateral kidney. Unfortunately, this tumor was not biopsied or resected, and the origin of the metastasis, either from the original SDHB tumor or from the metachronous neoplasm in the contralateral kidney, could not be established with certainty. Both patients with exclusively variant morphology (illustrated in Fig. 6) developed metastatic disease, but no further follow-up information was available.
The review of consecutive unselected cases from the Department of Anatomical Pathology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia identified 420 renal neoplasms. None of these tumors demonstrated morphologic features of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma, and IHC for SDHB, performed on a TMA, was positive in all cases, suggesting that the incidence in a truly unselected group of primary renal carcinomas is <1 in 420 (0.2%). The database from the Rockyview Hospital (Calgary Laboratory Services and University of Calgary) included 1750 in-house resected renal tumors. All renal neoplasms, reported as “unclassified” or “oncocytic” were reviewed, and 2 cases were identified on the basis of morphology, with an estimated overall incidence of 0.1%. The morphologic review of the renal tumor registry at the Department of Pathology, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic, identified only 1 case from 2004 locally resected tumors, with an estimated incidence of 0.05%.
SDH-deficient renal carcinoma has recently been accepted as a provisional entity in the 2013 ISUP Vancouver Classification. However, reflecting its rarity, published experience with this tumor has been limited. To substantiate its distinctive morphologic and clinical features, the prognosis, and the genetic associations of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma and to estimate its incidence, we evaluated a multi-institutional cohort of 36 SDH-deficient renal carcinomas from 27 patients, including 21 previously unreported cases.
This study confirmed that the previously reported distinctive morphologic features of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma are highly specific for the diagnosis. That is, all the cases with the typical morphology demonstrated negative staining for SDHB. Therefore morphology should be considered the primary screening test to identify SDH-deficient renal carcinoma in routine practice. However, we caution that the study was not intended or designed to demonstrate that all renal carcinomas arising in the context of SDH mutation will show this morphology. That is many cases reported in this series were first identified primarily on the basis of morphology, and only selected cases with compatible morphology then underwent screening IHC. Therefore, there may be a selection bias in this series toward cases with typical morphologic features. It is therefore worth noting that 2 (6%) cases from this series (both identified by IHC screening of large cohorts) lacked this distinctive morphology, and in other cases (particularly those with high ISUP nuclear [nucleolar] grade) this morphology was only a focal finding and may not be appreciated in routine clinical practice. Therefore, in addition to performing SDHB IHC on cases with compatible morphology, regardless of age or clinical features, we would also recommend that screening IHC be considered for other cases with suggestive clinical features (for example, multifocality, onset at a young age, or a personal or family history of renal carcinoma, pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma, gastric GIST, or pituitary adenoma).
We would estimate the true incidence of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma as being 0.05% to 0.2% of unselected renal neoplasms. In the local case series from Australia (Sydney), we found no morphologically or immunohistochemically compatible cases in 420 consecutive unselected renal tumors screened both by morphology and IHC. Similarly, only 1 and 2 cases were identified in large population-based cohorts of 2004 and 1750 consecutive renal carcinomas, respectively, in institutions from Europe (Pilsen) and North America (Calgary), which were screened by morphology. A limiting factor in the 2 latter series was the lack of systematic IHC for SDHB and SDHA, which could have potentially detected additional cases, particularly any with variant morphology. However, identification of the cases in these cohorts was based on the recognition of an unusual morphology and routine IHC, in the setting of large centralized uropathology practices with experienced genitourinary pathologists. Thus the estimated incidence derived from 3 institutions from different continents was similar and ranged from 0.05% to 0.2%. These results are also in keeping with the recently reported data by Miettinen et al,42 who performed IHC on 711 renal carcinomas and 64 oncocytomas and found that only 4 cases (0.5%) demonstrated loss of staining for SDHB.
The low incidence of SDH deficiency in renal carcinomas is similar to the low incidence reported in pituitary adenomas (0.3%),15 and contrasts to the high incidence found in pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma (3% in adrenal pheochromocytomas and up to 40% in extra-adrenal parangangliomas)6 and significant incidence in gastric GIST (5% to 7.5%).3,10 Therefore, although it has been recommended that all pheochromocytomas and all paragangliomas as well as gastric GISTs with compatible morphology for SDH-deficient GIST undergo screening IHC for SDHB,1,6,18 it is unlikely to be cost-effective or practical to screen all renal carcinomas with SDHB IHC.
This study confirmed that classical low-grade tumors showing typical histologic features and an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 2 are usually cured by excision alone. Of the 9 patients who developed metastatic disease, in only 2 did the primary tumor demonstrate exclusively low-grade features with an ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 2. Importantly, by the time of metastasis, both of these patients had developed a contralateral renal neoplasm, which had not been resected or biopsied. Therefore the metastasis may have arisen from the metachronous tumors, which may have been of higher grade and not from the primary low-grade SDH-deficient renal tumor.
We note that SDH-deficient renal carcinoma may undergo dedifferentiation including sarcomatoid transformation, and cases with high-grade nuclei commonly metastasize. In fact, metastatic disease developed in 7 of 10 patients with ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 3 or 4 nuclei or variant morphology. Although hemorrhage, fibrosis, and hyalinization were relatively common, only 4 tumors demonstrated true coagulative necrosis. Given that all 4 of these metastasized (and 3 were confirmed dead of disease), it is likely that coagulative necrosis is an adverse prognostic indicator.
Given the low risk for metastatic disease and the high incidence of bilateral tumors in 7 of 27 (26%) patients, our findings support nephron-sparing surgery for patients with low-grade tumors. Although there is insufficient evidence to recommend adjuvant treatment, patients with high-grade neoplasms (variant morphology, sarcomatoid change, coagulative necrosis, or high ISUP nucleolar [nuclear] grade) should be considered at high risk for metastasis, and consideration should be given to more radical treatments in these patients. We note that in 2 patients metastasis occurred >5 years after the initial presentation, and therefore extended (if not lifelong) follow-up is required for late recurrences, as well as metachronous disease and other syndromic manifestations of germline SDH mutation (GIST, paraganglioma, pituitary adenoma).1
The differential diagnosis of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma, which includes oncocytoma and chromophobe renal carcinoma is limited, and we consider loss of staining for SDHB as definitive confirmation of the diagnosis. Although SDHB IHC is not widely available, the morphologic features of typical SDH-deficient renal carcinoma, such as uniform low-grade morphology in the great majority of cases, flocculent (rather than truly oncocytic) cytoplasm, cytoplasmic vacuoles, lack of distinct cell borders, negative staining for c-KIT, and commonly negative or focal cytokeratin reactivity, are important clues to the diagnosis.
In our series of SDH-deficient renal carcinomas, germline mutations were identified in all 17 patients who underwent genetic testing. This is similar to the findings in SDH-deficient paragangliomas and pituitary adenomas, where the presence of negative staining for SDHB almost always signifies germline mutation of one of the components of the mitochondrial complex 2 (SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SDHAF2), rather than being due solely to somatic inactivation.1 In fact, we are aware of only 2 cases of SDH-deficient paraganglioma and 1 case of SDH-deficient pituitary adenoma in which double-hit SDH inactivation has occurred in the absence of germline mutation.15,44,45 It is possible that our series is subject to a referral bias because patients with known mutation or personal or family histories of syndrome-related tumors were more likely to be recognized and included in this study. However, our findings suggest that, similar to paraganglioma and pituitary adenoma, it is likely that most, perhaps almost all, SDH-deficient renal carcinomas will be associated with germline mutation of one of the SDH genes. Therefore, the diagnosis of SDH-deficient renal carcinoma can be considered an absolute indication for germline SDH mutation testing. No clear-cut genotype-phenotype correlations have emerged, although it is interesting to note in this series that 4 unrelated patients who developed renal carcinoma all harbored the same SDHB [c.423+1G>A] splice site mutation and that 2 of the patients with this mutation developed multifocal disease.
Although SDH-deficient renal carcinoma shows an extremely strong correlation with germline SDH mutation, we believe that IHC remains a phenotype test rather than a genotype test, and it is likely that not all SDHB IHC–negative tumors will be shown to have SDH mutations using current technology. Therefore, as we have previously stated in the setting of paraganglioma,6 we do not believe that specialized consent or formal genetic counseling would ordinarily be required before IHC is performed. This is analogous to IHC for DNA mismatch-repair proteins being used to triage patients with colorectal cancer for genetic testing for Lynch syndrome wherein there is now a trend toward universal screening, and most jurisdictions do not require genetic counseling before screening IHC is performed.
To date, no mutations in SDHA have been reported in association with renal carcinoma, but given that loss of staining for SDHA identifies both paragangliomas and GISTs associated with germline SDHA mutation,1,18–20,46–48 we would recommend that IHC for SDHA also be performed in SDH-deficient renal carcinoma to assist in triaging genetic testing for SDHA mutation.
The extremely high rate of germline mutation in the SDH subunits in SDH renal carcinoma is different to that found in SDH-deficient GIST, in which approximately 30% of cases are associated with SDHA mutation, and 10% to 20% of cases are associated with mutations in the other SDH subunits (SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD), leaving the mechanism of SDH deficiency uncertain in up to half of cases.18,19,46–48 It is noteworthy that some patients with SDH-deficient GIST but without germline mutation were found to have the Carney Triad (the nonhereditary but syndromic association of SDH-deficient GIST, paraganglioma, and pulmonary chondroma).3 It is therefore possible that some patients with SDH-deficient renal carcinoma may be syndromic, even if no germline mutations are identified. From a practical point, because long-term follow-up is required due to the possibility of late metastasis, we would also recommend long-term follow-up for other syndromic manifestations (pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma, GIST, pulmonary chondroma, or pituitary adenoma), regardless of whether or not a germline mutation is identified. In fact, although there may have been a selection bias toward recognizing patients with syndromic disease, we note that in our series 30% of patients also developed either paraganglioma or SDH-deficient GISTs—a particularly striking association given the relative rarity of these tumors.
In conclusion, SDH-deficient renal carcinoma represents a distinct and rare renal neoplasm, which is defined by loss of IHC staining for SDHB. Because of its rarity, it is impractical to perform reflex screening IHC on all renal cancers. However, the great majority of SDH-deficient renal tumors (94% in this series) demonstrated typical appearances at least focally and were recognized by their uniform low-grade cytology, cytoplasmic vacuoles, eosinophilic or flocculent (rather than truly oncocytic) cytoplasm, focal cystic change, and solid to lobulated growth with peripherally entrapped renal tubules. In tumors exhibiting low-grade nuclear features with ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade 2, metastasis is unusual but can occur even after a prolonged period. SDH-deficient renal carcinoma may be associated with high ISUP nucleolar (nuclear) grade, coagulative necrosis or sarcomatoid transformation, in which case the development of metastatic disease is much more likely. SDH-deficient renal carcinomas are commonly multifocal and with prolonged follow-up, bilateral tumors can be identified in up to 26% of patients. To date, all reported cases have been associated with germline mutations of the SDH genes.
1. Gill AJ. Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) and mitochondrial driven neoplasia. Pathology. 2012;44:285–292.
2. Fishbein L, Nathanson KL. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: understanding the complexities of the genetic background. Cancer Genet. 2012;205:1–11.
3. Gill AJ, Chou A, Vilain R, et al.. Immunohistochemistry for SDHB divides gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) into 2 distinct types. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:636–644.
4. Gill AJ, Pachter NS, Chou A, et al.. Renal tumors associated with germline SDHB mutation show distinctive morphology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1578–1585.
5. van Nederveen FH, Gaal J, Favier J, et al.. An immunohistochemical procedure to detect patients with paraganglioma and phaeochromocytoma with germline SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD gene mutations: a retrospective and prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:764–771.
6. Gill AJ, Benn DE, Chou A, et al.. Immunohistochemistry for SDHB triages genetic testing of SDHB, SDHC and SDHD in paraganglioma-phaeochromocytoma syndromes. Hum Pathol. 2010;41:805–814.
7. Janeway KA, Kim SY, Lodish M, et al.. Defects in succinate dehydrogenase in gastrointestinal stromal tumors lacking KIT and PDGFRA mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:314–318.
8. Gill AJ, Chou A, Vilain RE, et al.. “Pediatric type” gastrointestinal stromal tumors are SDHB negative (“type 2”) GISTs. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1245–1247.
9. Gaal J, Stratakis CA, Carney JA, et al.. SDHB immunohistochemistry: a useful tool in the diagnosis of Carney-Stratakis and Carney triad gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:147–151.
10. Miettinen M, Wang ZF, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al.. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient GISTs: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 66 gastric GISTs with predilection to young age. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1712–1721.
11. Chou A, Chen J, Clarkson A, et al.. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient GISTs are characterized by IGF1R overexpression. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:1307–1313.
12. Gill AJ, Pachter NS, Clarkson A, et al.. Renal tumors and hereditary pheochromoytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:885–886.
13. Dwight T, Mann K, Benn D, et al.. Familial SDHA mutation associated with pituitary adenoma and pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:E1103–E1108.
14. Xekouki P, Pacak K, Almeida M, et al.. Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) D subunit (SDHD) inactivation in a growth-hormone-producing pituitary tumor: a new association for SDH? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:E357–E366.
15. Gill AJ, Toon CW, Clarkson A, et al.. Succinate dehydrogenase deficiency is rare in pituitary adenomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:560–566.
16. Paik JY, Toon CW, Benn DE, et al.. Renal carcinoma associated with succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB) mutation: a new and unique subtype of renal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:e10–e13.
17. Gill AJ, Lipton L, Taylor J, et al.. Germline SDHC mutation presenting as recurrent SDH deficient GIST and renal carcinoma. Pathology. 2013;45:689–691.
18. Dwight T, Benn DE, Clarkson A, et al.. Loss of SDHA expression identifies SDHA mutations in succinate dehydrogenase deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:226–233.
19. Miettinen M, Killian JK, Wang ZF, et al.. Immunohistochemical loss of succinate dehydrogenase subunit A (SDHA) in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) signals SDHA germline mutation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:234–240.
20. Korpershoek E, Favier J, Gaal J, et al.. SDHA immunohistochemistry detects germline SDHA gene mutations in apparently sporadic paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:E1472–E1476.
21. Ricketts CJ, Shuch B, Vocke CD, et al.. Succinate dehydrogenase kidney cancer: an aggressive example of the Warburg effect in cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:2063–2071.
22. Said-Al-Naief N, Ojha J. Hereditary paraganglioma of the nasopharynx. Head Neck Pathol. 2008;2:272–278.
23. Solis DC, Burnichon N, Timmers HJ, et al.. Penetrance and clinical consequences of a gross SDHB deletion in a large family. Clin Genet. 2009;75:354–363.
24. Henderson A, Douglas F, Perros P, et al.. SDHB-associated renal oncocytoma suggests a broadening of the renal phenotype in hereditary paragangliomatosis. Fam Cancer. 2009;8:257–260.
25. Fairchild RS, Kyner JL, Hermreck A, et al.. Neuroblastoma, pheochromocytoma, and renal cell carcinoma. Occurrence in a single patient. JAMA. 1979;242:2210–2211.
26. Schimke RN, Collins DL, Stolle CA. Paraganglioma, neuroblastoma, and a SDHB mutation: resolution of a 30-year-old mystery. Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152A:1531–1535.
27. Vanharanta S, Buchta M, McWhinney SR, et al.. Early-onset renal cell carcinoma as a novel extraparaganglial component of SDHB-associated heritable paraganglioma. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:153–159.
28. Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M, et al.. Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA. 2004;292:943–951.
29. Eng C. SDHB—a gene for all tumors? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1193–1195.
30. Srirangalingam U, Walker L, Khoo B, et al.. Clinical manifestations of familial paraganglioma and phaeochromocytomas in succinate dehydrogenase B (SDH-B) gene mutation carriers. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2008;69:587–596.
31. Srirangalingam U, Khoo B, Walker L, et al.. Contrasting clinical manifestations of SDHB and VHL associated chromaffin tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16:515–525.
32. Tuthill M, Barod R, Pyle L, et al.. A report of succinate dehydrogenase B deficiency associated with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: successful treatment with the multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. BMJ Case Rep. 2009;2009pii: bcr08.2008.0732. [Epub 2009 Feb 16].
33. Ricketts C, Woodward ER, Killick P, et al.. Germline SDHB mutations and familial renal cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1260–1262.
34. Cascón A, Landa I, López-Jiménez E, et al.. Molecular characterisation of a common SDHB deletion in paraganglioma patients. J Med Genet. 2008;45:233–238.
35. Cascón A, Montero-Conde C, Ruiz-Llorente S, et al.. Gross SDHB deletions in patients with paraganglioma detected by multiplex PCR: a possible hot spot? Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2006;45:213–219.
36. Fleming S, Mayer NJ, Vlatkovic LJ, et al.. Signalling pathways in succinate dehydrogenase B-associated renal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2014;64:477–483.
37. Jasperson KW, Kohlmann W, Gammon A, et al.. Role of rapid sequence whole-body MRI screening in SDH-associated hereditary paraganglioma families. Fam Cancer. 2014;13:257–265.
38. Malinoc A, Sullivan M, Wiech T, et al.. Biallelic inactivation of the SDHC gene in renal carcinoma associated with paraganglioma syndrome type 3. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2012;19:283–290.
39. Ni Y, Zbuk KM, Sadler T, et al.. Germline mutations and variants in the succinate dehydrogenase genes in Cowden and Cowden-like syndromes. Am J Hum Genet. 2008;83:261–268.
40. Papathomas TG, Gaal J, Corssmit EP, et al.. Non-pheochromocytoma (PCC)/paraganglioma (PGL) tumors in patients with succinate dehydrogenase-related PCC-PGL syndromes: a clinicopathological and molecular analysis. Eur J Endocrinol. 2014;170:1–12.
41. Housley SL, Lindsay RS, Young B, et al.. Renal carcinoma with giant mitochondria associated with germ-line mutation and somatic loss of the succinate dehydrogenase B gene. Histopathology. 2010;56:405–408.
42. Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, McCue P, et al.. Mapping of succinate dehydrogenase losses in 2258 epithelial neoplasms. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2014;22:31–36.
43. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Eble JN, et al.. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1469–1489.
44. Gimm O, Armanios M, Dziema H, et al.. Somatic and occult germline mutations in SDHD, a mitochondrial complex II gene, in nonfamilial phaeochromocytoma. Cancer Res. 2000;60:6822–6825.
45. van Nederveen FH, Korpershoek E, Lenders JW, et al.. Somatic SDHB mutation in extraadrenal pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:306–308.
46. Wagner AJ, Remillard SP, Zhang YX, et al.. Loss of expression of SDHA predicts SDHA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol. 2012;26:289–294.
47. Belinsky MG, Rink L, Flieder DB, et al.. Overexpression of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor and frequent mutational inactivation of SDHA in wild-type SDHB-negative gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2012;52:214–224.
48. Oudijk L, Gaal J, Korpershoek E, et al.. SDHA mutations in adult and pediatric wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol. 2012;26:456–463.
Keywords:Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
SDHB; SDHA; succinate dehydrogenase; renal carcinoma