Journal of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Editor Note - Journal of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (2025) Volume 7, Issue 3

Anatomical and histopathological patterns in renal neoplasms: A regional perspective

Robert Singh*

Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Robert Singh
Department of Pathology
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA
E-mail: maria.johnson@ospital.edu.cn

Received: 10-Sep-2025, Manuscript No. AACPLM- 25-166915; Editor assigned: 11-Sep-2025, Pre QC No. AACPLM- 25-166915 (PQ); Reviewed: 20-Sep-2025, QC No. AACPLM- 25-166915; Revised: 21-Sep-2025, Manuscript No. AACPLM- 25-166915 (R); Published: 28-Sep-2025, DOI: 10.35841/ aacplm-7.3.272

Citation: Singh R. Anatomical and histopathological patterns in renal neoplasms: A regional perspective. J Clin Path Lab Med.2025;(7)3:272

Introduction

Renal neoplasms represent a diverse group of tumors with varying anatomical presentations and histopathological features. The global incidence of renal cancers has shown regional variability due to differences in genetics, environmental exposures, lifestyle factors, and healthcare infrastructure. In this context, analyzing the anatomical and histopathological patterns of renal neoplasms from a regional perspective is critical for accurate diagnosis, management, and prognosis.[1].

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of renal malignancy, accounting for nearly 90% of all renal cancers in adults. Among the histological subtypes of RCC, clear cell RCC (ccRCC) predominates, followed by papillary RCC (pRCC) and chromophobe RCC (chRCC) [1]. Regional studies have demonstrated variations in the relative frequencies of these subtypes. For example, studies in Asian populations often report a slightly higher incidence of papillary RCC compared to Western populations.[2].

The anatomical distribution of renal neoplasms generally favors the upper pole of the kidney. Tumors are typically unilateral and may vary in size, with larger lesions more frequently associated with aggressive behavior and late presentation. The Fuhrman nuclear grading system, often used in histopathological analysis, remains an important prognostic marker, particularly.[3]

Histopathologically, ccRCC is characterized by cells with clear cytoplasm and a delicate vasculature known as "chicken-wire" capillaries. Papillary RCC shows papillae lined by cuboidal or columnar epithelial cells and is further divided into type 1 and type 2 based on cellular morphology. Chromophobe RCC, in contrast, presents as large polygonal cells with perinuclear halos and prominent cell borders. Immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics have enhanced the differentiation of histological subtypes and helped identify rare neoplasms such as collecting duct carcinoma, renal medullary carcinoma, and translocation-associated RCCs. These rare tumors tend to present at an advanced stage and are associated with poor prognosis.[4].

Recent regional studies have reported differences in tumor size at presentation, tumor grade, and histological subtypes. In developing regions, limited access to healthcare facilities and imaging often leads to the discovery of larger, more advanced tumors. Moreover, certain environmental exposures, such as arsenic-contaminated water or industrial pollutants, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of specific renal tumor types. [5].

Conclusion

Understanding the regional variations in anatomical and histopathological patterns is vital for the formulation of public health strategies and treatment protocols. Local tumor registries and population-based studies are essential to provide data that reflect the actual burden and biology of renal neoplasms.

References

  1. Qiang Z, Zhang W, Jin S, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen, a-fetoprotein, and Ki67 as biomarkers and prognostic factors in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Hepatol. 2021;20:100242.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Bagante F, Spolverato G, Merath K, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tumor burden: A classification and regression tree model to define prognostic groups after resection. Surgery. 2019;166(6):983–90.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Shibahara H, Tamada S, Higashi M, et al. MUC4 is a novel prognostic factor of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-mass forming type. Hepatology. 2004;39(1):220–9.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Ruys AT, Groot Koerkamp B, Wiggers JK, et al. Prognostic biomarkers in patients with resected cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(2):487–500.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Yoshikawa D, Ojima H, Iwasaki M, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of EGFR, VEGF, and HER2 expression in cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(2):418–25.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App