David R Yates1, James W F Catto. 1. The Academic Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Rd, Sheffield, UK. d.yates@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) shares many similarities with bladder-UC, but there is strong evidence on a clinical, aetiological, epidemiological and genetic level that key differences exist. In this review, we aim to highlight how UTUC differs from bladder-UC and report on the utility of molecular markers in the diagnosis and management of UTUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the Medline and Embase databases and specific keyword combinations: 'urothelial carcinoma', 'bladder cancer', 'transitional cell carcinoma', 'upper tract', 'upper urinary tract', 'genetics', 'prognosis' and 'biomarkers'. RESULTS: UTUC has specific acquired (e.g. Balkans nephropathy, phenacetin abuse) and genetic hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer risk factors compared with bladder-UC. In general, the molecular biology of UC is broadly similar, irrespective of location in the urinary tract. However, there are distinct genetic (microsatellite instability) and epigenetic (hypermethylation) differences between some UTUC and bladder-UC. Clinical-pathological variables (e.g. hydronephrosis, tumour architecture, tumour location, stage and grade) have independent predictive power in UTUC, but tissue and urinary biomarkers can improve the clinical prediction of recurrence, invasion and survival in UTUC, though the evidence level is weak. CONCLUSIONS: UTUC shares many similarities with bladder-UC, but there is strong evidence that they should be considered as distinct urothelial entities. Prospective multi-institutional studies investigating molecular markers are urgently needed to augment clinic-pathological predictors in UTUC.
PURPOSE: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) shares many similarities with bladder-UC, but there is strong evidence on a clinical, aetiological, epidemiological and genetic level that key differences exist. In this review, we aim to highlight how UTUC differs from bladder-UC and report on the utility of molecular markers in the diagnosis and management of UTUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the Medline and Embase databases and specific keyword combinations: 'urothelial carcinoma', 'bladder cancer', 'transitional cell carcinoma', 'upper tract', 'upper urinary tract', 'genetics', 'prognosis' and 'biomarkers'. RESULTS: UTUC has specific acquired (e.g. Balkans nephropathy, phenacetin abuse) and genetic hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer risk factors compared with bladder-UC. In general, the molecular biology of UC is broadly similar, irrespective of location in the urinary tract. However, there are distinct genetic (microsatellite instability) and epigenetic (hypermethylation) differences between some UTUC and bladder-UC. Clinical-pathological variables (e.g. hydronephrosis, tumour architecture, tumour location, stage and grade) have independent predictive power in UTUC, but tissue and urinary biomarkers can improve the clinical prediction of recurrence, invasion and survival in UTUC, though the evidence level is weak. CONCLUSIONS: UTUC shares many similarities with bladder-UC, but there is strong evidence that they should be considered as distinct urothelial entities. Prospective multi-institutional studies investigating molecular markers are urgently needed to augment clinic-pathological predictors in UTUC.
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Maximilian Burger; Vitaly Margulis; Surena F Matin; Giacomo Novara; Morgan Roupret; Shahrokh F Shariat; Christopher G Wood; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Johanna M M van Oers; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Ishtiaq Rehman; Abdel-Rahmene Azzouzi; Olivier Cussenot; Mark Meuth; Freddie C Hamdy; James W F Catto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James W F Catto; Saiful Miah; Helen C Owen; Helen Bryant; Katie Myers; Ewa Dudziec; Stéphane Larré; Marta Milo; Ishtiaq Rehman; Derek J Rosario; Erica Di Martino; Margaret A Knowles; Mark Meuth; Adrian L Harris; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christopher Martin; Claire L Leiser; Brock O'Neil; Sumati Gupta; William T Lowrance; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha Greenberg; Piyush Pathak; Ken R Smith; Heidi A Hanson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Holly L Harper; Jesse K McKenney; Brandie Heald; Andrew Stephenson; Steven C Campbell; Thomas Plesec; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Guangping Tai; Parisa Ranjzad; Fiona Marriage; Samrina Rehman; Helen Denley; Jill Dixon; Karen Mitchell; Philip J R Day; Adrian S Woolf Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Masamichi Hayashi; Heike Bernert; Luciane Tsukamoto Kagohara; Leonel Maldonado; Mariana Brait; Mark Schoenberg; Trinity Bivalacqua; George J Netto; Wayne Koch; David Sidransky; Mohammad O Hoque Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2014-05-30