4.4 Article

Variant morphology in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a 14-year case series of biopsy and resection specimens

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 209-216

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.05.001

关键词

Upper urinary tract; Urothelial carcinoma; Variant morphology; Squamous differentiation; Inverted growth pattern

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma exhibiting variant morphology, especially in higher grade tumors, is a recognized phenomenon but has not been comparatively studied in biopsy versus resection material. We studied the morphologic patterns and clinicopathological features, and provide a comparison between biopsy and resection specimens. Consultation cases were evaluated separately to investigate for possible consultation bias. A total of 383 in-house cases from 352 patients including 314 resection specimens and 69 biopsies from 2001 to 2014 were reviewed from a single institution. Histologic type, tumor grade, invasion, pathologic stage, nodal status, metastasis, and the presence and type of variant morphology for each case were evaluated. Variant morphology was identified in 5 biopsy specimens (7.2%) and 42 resection specimens (13.4%). The most common variant morphologic pattern was squamous differentiation (16 cases, 4.5%) followed by an inverted growth pattern (8 cases, 2.2%). The presence of variant morphology in resection specimens had a significant association with higher tumor grade, higher pT stage, and non papillary configuration. Of 69 patients with biopsies, 31 had a subsequent resection. In comparison, 181 consultation cases from 168 patients showed variant morphology in 6 biopsies (7.1%) and 27 resections (28.1%). In conclusion, the frequency of recognizing variant morphology in biopsies is about one-half of that in resections. The inclusion of consultation cases can inflate the incidence of variant morphology. As a result, the frequency of variant morphology in our in-house cases is lower than the percentage reported in the literature, most likely secondary to a consultation bias. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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