{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02596766291033807, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015188633023027927, 'mean_word_length': 5.401253918495298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Metanephric adenoma-like tumors of the kidney: report of 3 malignancies with emphasis on discriminating features.

BACKGROUND
Metanephric adenoma is a very rare benign renal tumor; only 80 well-documented cases have been reported to date. We have seen several renal tumors that were originally incorrectly diagnosed as metanephric adenoma.


DESIGN
We present 3 unusual renal tumors (2 primary and 1 metastatic), each of which illustrates important pathologic features useful in discriminating metanephric adenoma from malignant mimics.


RESULTS
Case 1 involved a 46-year-old man with multiple small, cortical, solid, papillary (chromophil) renal cell carcinomas in his right kidney; the patient developed multiple, histologically identical, solid, papillary (chromophil) carcinomas in the opposite kidney 17 months later. Case 2 involved a 32-year-old woman with a 14-cm right renal tumor who developed soft tissue and bone metastases over a 17-year period. Case 3 involved a 52-year-old woman who presented with a 1.8-cm corticomedullary renal nodule, which eventually proved to represent a metastasis from a poorly differentiated (insular) carcinoma of the thyroid. All 3 tumors superficially resembled metanephric adenoma and consisted of primitive, dark-staining cells arranged in tubules or sheets. Each tumor, however, also had features inconsistent with the diagnosis of metanephric adenoma, including multifocal lesions with a variable nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio and diffuse cytokeratin 7 and epithelial membrane antigen immunopositivity in case 1, a 14-cm-diameter tumor with occasional mitoses in case 2, and a distinct fibrous capsule with capsular and vascular invasion in case 3. In addition, all 3 tumors lacked the cytologic features of bland overlapping nuclei with imperceptible cytoplasm consistently seen in metanephric adenoma.


CONCLUSION
Adherence to strict histopathologic criteria will discourage misdiagnosis of a malignant or potentially malignant renal neoplasm as the rare and always benign metanephric adenoma.