3.8 Article

Micropapillary Variant of Urothelial Carcinoma in a Hemodialysis Patient

期刊

CASE REPORTS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 462-468

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000524430

关键词

Bladder cancer; Micropapillary variant; Hemodialysis; Urothelial carcinoma; Cystectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The micropapillary variant of urothelial carcinoma (MPUC) is an aggressive form of urothelial carcinoma with high metastatic potential and a poor prognosis. Regular screening is recommended for its early detection in hemodialysis patients.
The micropapillary variant of urothelial carcinoma (MPUC) is an aggressive form of urothelial carcinoma with high metastatic potential and a poor prognosis. Although various therapies have been reported, there is still no established treatment strategy for MPUC due to its rarity. The incidence of urinary tract malignancies is higher in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) than in healthy individuals. Here, we report the case of an 82-year-old man on HD with end-stage kidney disease who visited our hospital for macrohematuria. Cystoscopy followed by computed tomography and urine cytology revealed a sessile papillary tumor around the left bladder wall. We performed transurethral resection of the bladder tumor. Based on histopathological and imaging findings indicative of clinical-stage T3N0M0 MPUC, we performed radical cystectomy. Histopathology revealed a pathological stage T4aN0M0 MPUC. Two months after the cystectomy, the patient complained of constipation and painful defecation due to local recurrence and rectal invasion. While colostomy was performed to improve defecation 3 months after cystectomy, he did not receive any chemotherapy due to his progressively worsening general condition. Six months after cystectomy, he died following rapid metastases. Our findings, in this case, confirm that bladder cancer in HD patients tends to be pathologically more advanced. Therefore, regular screening is recommended for its early detection in HD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据