Browsing by Subject "upper urinary tract"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Variant morphology in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a fourteen-year case series of biopsy and resection specimens
    (Elsevier, 2017) Hayashi, Hiroyuki; Mann, Steven; Kao, Chia-Sui; Grignon, David; Idrees, Muhammad T.; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    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 2001–2014 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. Out of 69 patients with biopsies, 31 had a subsequent resection. In comparison, 181 consultation cases from 168 patients showed variant morphology in six biopsies (7.1%) and twenty-seven 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.