When making the diagnosis of a MiT family translocation tumour is relevant for patient treatment – i.e. owing to risk of early LN metastases or for potential use of MTOR inhibitors

FH – following on from suggestive immuno for cases where suggestive of mutation but no germline FH mutation found / SDH following on from suggestive immuno for cases where suggestive of mutation but no germline SDH mutation found / VHL – when suspected clear cell carcinoma but aberrant morphology meaning diagnosis on morphological grounds alone is problematic / TCEB-1 morphologically suggestive of non-VHL clear cell tumour where making diagnosis would alter management / TSC1/2 – when morphology suggests that mutation in one of the these genes may be present / MET – when morphology suggests a type 1 papillary RCC and it is relevant to patient management to make this specific diagnosis / BRAF – if morphology does not allow distinction between metanephric adenoma and type 1 papillary RCC

When the morphology does not confirm a diagnosis of a suspected clear cell renal carcinoma and making a definitive diagnosis will assist in patient management

When morphologically suggestive of non-VHL clear cell tumour where making specific diagnosis would alter management

When morphology does not make a clear diagnosis of a suspected papillary RCC

Patient’s clinical status means they are eligible for an NTRK inhibitor in the event an NTRK rearrangement is detected

When making the diagnosis of a MiT family translocation tumour is relevant for patient treatment – i.e. owing to risk of early LN metastases or for potential use of MTOR inhibitors