| Literature DB >> 34755067 |
Keisuke Goto1, Takahiro Kambara2, Yoshito Kagiyama1, Kenshiro Takemoto1, Kohei Kobatake1, Kenichiro Ikeda1, Shogo Inoue1, Tetsutaro Hayashi1, Yukio Takeshima2, Jun Teishima1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metastatic urothelial carcinomas are common in lung, liver, and lymph nodes. We present rare secondary tumor of the prostate metastasized from upper tract urothelial carcinoma. CASEEntities:
Keywords: invasive UTUC; metastasis; secondary tumor of the prostate; upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34755067 PMCID: PMC8560457 DOI: 10.1002/iju5.12358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IJU Case Rep ISSN: 2577-171X
Fig. 1Clinical findings of the case. (a) CT image at the first visit. Left hydronephrosis was evident. (b) Cystoscopy showed papillary bladder tumor. (c) Retrograde pyelography showed left hydronephrosis with filling defect in the renal pelvis. (d) Bladder tumor had papillary architecture with fibromuscular core without invasion to lamina propria. (e) CT examination revealed apparent progression of the tumor in renal pelvis. (f) Bilateral lung metastasis
Fig. 2Gross appearance of left kidney, bladder, and prostate. (a) Tumors in left renal pelvis. (b) Scars due to TUR were found in urinary bladder (asterisk) and tumor nodule was evident in the prostate (arrow)
Fig. 3Histological findings of tumor in left kidney. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin staining with lower magnification (x50). Tumor cells had papillary architecture and invading into muscular layer. (b) Tumor in left kidney with high magnification (x200). Immunohistochemistry showed tumor cells were (c) positive for cytokeratin 7, (d) negative for cytokeratin 20, (e) positive for cytokeratin 34βE12, (f) negative for GATA‐binding protein 3 (GATA3), (g) positive for p63, (h) negative for PSA, and (i) negative for AMACR. (h) Periodic acid Schiff‐Alcian blue staining showed no mucin production in tumor. Scale bar indicates 100 µm
Fig. 4Histological findings of tumor in prostate. (a) Loupe picture of hematoxylin and eosin staining section. Tumor focus was detected in the middle of the prostate. (b) Tumor in prostate with lower magnification (x20). Tumor focus was isolated from prostatic urethra and tumor cells had papillary architecture, similar as the tumor in renal pelvis. (c) Tumor in prostate with high magnification (x200). Immunohistochemistry showed tumor cells were (d) positive for cytokeratin 7, (e) negative for cytokeratin 20, (f) positive for cytokeratin 34βE12, (g) negative for GATA3, (h) positive for p63, (i) negative for PSA, and (j) negative for AMACR. (k) Periodic acid Schiff‐Alcian blue staining showed no mucin production in tumor. Scale bar indicates 100 µm