Variants and new entities of bladder cancer Lopez‐Beltran, Antonio; Henriques, Vanessa; Montironi, Rodolfo ...
Histopathology,
January 2019, Volume:
74, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Pathological evaluation of bladder cancer typically reveals great tumour heterogeneity, and therefore the common observation of urothelial carcinoma exhibiting a wide variety of histopathological ...patterns is not surprising. Some of these patterns are so distinctive that they have been recognised as specific variants of urothelial carcinoma. Classifications have recently been revised in the 2016 World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. The current WHO classifications clarify terminological issues and provide better definition criteria, but also incorporate some new entities. Many of these variants have important prognostic or therapeutic implications worth knowing by the urologist and oncologist, but also represent diagnostic challenges in daily pathology practice. This review will discuss the features of variants of urothelial carcinoma in the context of our current clinical practice. Histological variations and new entities of bladder cancer not included in the current WHO classification of urothelial tumours will be briefly discussed.
The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) “Blue Book” brings a comprehensive update on the terminology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, diagnostic molecular pathology, and ...prognostic and predictive progress in genitourinary tumors. In this review, we presented a summary of the salient changes introduced in the WHO 2022 classification of tumors of the prostate and the urinary tract.
The 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the urinary and male genital tumors was recently published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. This fifth edition of the WHO “Blue Book” offers a comprehensive update on the terminology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, diagnostic molecular pathology, and prognostic and predictive progress in genitourinary tumors. In this review, the editors of the fifth series volume on urologic and male genital neoplasms present a summary of the salient changes introduced to the classification of tumors of the prostate and the urinary tract.
The 2022 World Health Organization classification contains new renal tumour entities. Some of them are based on a molecular driver event. The classification of penile squamous cell carcinomas is ...simplified and based on the presence of human papillomavirus. A new chapter with tumours of the scrotum has been introduced. Nomenclature changes of testicular tumours include replacement of the term “primitive neuroectodermal tumour” by “embryonic neuroectodermal tumour”. The term “carcinoid” has been changed to “neuroendocrine tumour”.
The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urogenital tumours (WHO “Blue Book”), published in 2022, contains significant revisions. This review summarises the most relevant changes for renal, penile, and testicular tumours. In keeping with other volumes in the fifth edition series, the WHO classification of urogenital tumours follows a hierarchical classification and lists tumours by site, category, family, and type. The section “essential and desirable diagnostic criteria” included in the WHO fifth edition represents morphologic diagnostic criteria, combined with immunohistochemistry and relevant molecular tests. The global introduction of massive parallel sequencing will result in a diagnostic shift from morphology to molecular analyses. Therefore, a molecular-driven renal tumour classification has been introduced, taking recent discoveries in renal tumour genomics into account. Such novel molecularly defined epithelial renal tumours include SMARCB1-deficient medullary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFEB-altered RCC, Alk-rearranged RCC, and ELOC-mutated RCC. Eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC is a novel morphologically defined RCC entity. The diverse morphologic patterns of penile squamous cell carcinomas are grouped as human papillomavirus (HPV) associated and HPV independent, and there is an attempt to simplify the morphologic classification. A new chapter with tumours of the scrotum has been introduced. The main nomenclature of testicular tumours is retained, including the use of the term “germ cell neoplasia in situ” (GCNIS) for the preneoplastic lesion of most germ cell tumours and division from those not derived from GCNIS. Nomenclature changes include replacement of the term “primitive neuroectodermal tumour” by “embryonic neuroectodermal tumour” to separate these tumours clearly from Ewing sarcoma. The term “carcinoid” has been changed to “neuroendocrine tumour”, with most examples in the testis now classified as “prepubertal type testicular neuroendocrine tumour”.
The 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems contains relevant revisions and introduces a group of molecularly defined renal tumour subtypes. Herein we ...present the World Health Organization (WHO) 2022 perspectives on papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with emphasis on their evolving classification, differential diagnosis, and emerging entities. The WHO 2022 classification eliminated the type 1/2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) subcategorization, given the recognition of frequent mixed tumour phenotypes and the existence of entities with a different molecular background within the type 2 pRCC category. Additionally, emerging entities such as biphasic squamoid alveolar RCC, biphasic hyalinising psammomatous RCC, papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity, and Warthin‐like pRCC are included as part of the pRCC spectrum, while additional morphological and molecular data are being gathered. In addition to oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC), a category of ‘other oncocytic tumours’ with oncocytoma/chRCC‐like features has been introduced, including emerging entities, most with TSC/mTOR pathway alterations (eosinophilic vacuolated tumour and so‐called ‘low‐grade’ oncocytic tumour), deserving additional research. Eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC was accepted as a new and independent tumour entity. Finally, a highly reproducible and clinically relevant universal grading system for chRCC is still missing and is another niche of ongoing investigation. This review discusses these developments and highlights emerging morphological and molecular data relevant for the classification of renal cell carcinoma.
The 5th edition of the World Health Organisation Blue Book was published recently and includes a comprehensive update on testicular tumours. This builds upon the work of the 4th edition, retaining ...its structure and main nomenclature, including the use of the term ‘germ cell neoplasia in situ’ (GCNIS) for the pre‐invasive lesion of most germ cell tumours and division from those not derived from GCNIS. While there have been important developments in understanding the molecular underpinnings of testicular cancer, this updated classification paradigm and approach remains rooted in morphology. Nomenclature changes include replacement of the term ‘primitive neuroectodermal tumour’ by ‘embryonic neuroectodermal tumour’ based on the non‐specificity of the former term and to separate these tumours clearly from Ewing sarcoma. Seminoma is placed in a germinoma family of tumours emphasising relation to those tumours at other sites. Criteria for the diagnosis of ‘teratoma with somatic transformation’ have been modified to not include variable field size assessments. The word ‘carcinoid’ has been changed to ‘neuroendocrine tumour’, with most examples in the testis now classified as ‘prepubertal type testicular neuroendocrine tumour’. For sex cord‐stromal tumours, the use of mitotic counts per high‐power field has been changed to per mm2 for malignancy assessments, and the new entities, ‘signet ring stromal tumour’ and ‘myoid gonadal stromal tumour’, are defined. Well‐differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour has now been defined as tumour type with a favourable prognosis. Sertoliform cystadenoma has been removed as an entity from testicular adnexal tumours and placed with Sertoli cell tumours.
The WHO 2022 classification changes include new nomenclature such as embryonic neuroectodermal tumour. There are new entities such as pre‐pubertal type testicular neuroendocrine tumour, signet ring stromal tumour and myoid gonadal stromal tumour. Evaluation of tumours by mitotic counts per mm2 is now mandated.
Emerging data on T1 bladder cancer subcategorization (aka substaging) suggests a correlation with oncological outcomes. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) organized the 2022 ...consensus conference in Basel, Switzerland to focus on current issues in bladder cancer and tasked working group 3 to make recommendations for T1 subcategorization in transurethral bladder resections. For this purpose, the ISUP developed and circulated a survey to their membership querying approaches to T1 bladder cancer subcategorization. In particular, clinical relevance, pathological reporting, and endorsement of T1 subcategorization in the daily practice of pathology were surveyed. Of the respondents of the premeeting survey, about 40% do not routinely report T1 subcategory. We reviewed literature on bladder T1 subcategorization, and screened selected articles for clinical performance and practicality of T1 subcategorization methods. Published literature offered evidence of the clinical rationale for T1 subcategorization and at the conference consensus (83% of conference attendants) was obtained to report routinely T1 subcategorization of transurethral resections. Semiquantitative T1 subcategorization was favored (37%) over histoanatomic methods (4%). This is in line with literature findings on practicality and prognostic impact, that is, a shift of publications from histoanatomic to semiquantitative methods or by reports incorporating both methodologies is apparent over the last decade. However, 59% of participants had no preference for either methodology. They would add a comment in the report briefly stating applied method, interpretation criteria (including cutoff), and potential limitations. When queried on the terminology of T1 subcategorization, 34% and 20% of participants were in favor of T1 (microinvasive) versus T1 (extensive) or T1 (focal) versus T1 (nonfocal), respectively.
We present the rationale for keeping the “cancer” label for grade group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer. Maintaining GG1 as the lowest grade outweighs the potential benefits that a benign designation may ...bring. Patient and surgeon education on the vital role of active surveillance for GG1 cancers and avoidance of overtreatment should be the focus rather than such a drastic change in nomenclature.
Take Home Message Inactivation of the tumor suppressor gene SMARCB1 (also known as INI1 ) by interchromosomal balanced translocations is a molecular mechanism that characterizes renal medullary ...carcinoma and might be relevant for the development of more effective therapeutic strategies.
We report on the clinicopathologic features of 115 cases of high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract with variant histology present in 39 (34%). Variant histology was typically seen ...in high pathological stage (pT2-pT4) (82%, 32 cases) patients with lower survival rate (70%, 27 cases, median survival 31 months) and consisted in urothelial with one (23%), two (3%), and three or more variants (3%); 4% of cases presented with pure variant histology. Squamous divergent differentiation was the most common variant (7%) followed by sarcomatoid (6%) and glandular (4%), followed by 3% each of micropapillary, diffuse-plasmacytoid, inverted growth, clear cell glycogenic, or lipid-rich. The pseudo-angiosarcomatous variant is seen in 2%, and 1% each of nested, giant-cell, lymphoepithelioma-like, small-cell, trophoblastic, rhabdoid, microcystic, lymphoid-rich stroma, or myxoid stroma/chordoid completed the study series. Loss of mismatch repair protein expression was identified in one case of upper urinary tract carcinoma with inverted growth variant (3.6%). Variant histology was associated to pathological stage (
p
= 0.007) and survival status (
p
= 0.039). The univariate survival analysis identified variant histology as a feature of lower recurrence-free survival (
p
= 0.046). Our findings suggest that variant histology is a feature of aggressiveness in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract worth it to be reported.
The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems encompasses several updates to the classification and diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as well as ...incorporating advancements in the assessment of its prognosis, including recent grading modifications. Some of the salient aspects include: (1) recognition that prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)‐like carcinoma is not synonymous with a pattern of ductal carcinoma, but better classified as a subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma; (2) a specific section on treatment‐related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma in view of the tight correlation between androgen deprivation therapy and the development of prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine morphology, and the emerging data on lineage plasticity; (3) a terminology change of basal cell carcinoma to “adenoid cystic (basal cell) cell carcinoma” given the presence of an underlying MYB::NFIB gene fusion in many cases; (4) discussion of the current issues in the grading of acinar adenocarcinoma and the prognostic significance of cribriform growth patterns; and (5) more detailed coverage of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC‐P) reflecting our increased knowledge of this entity, while recommending the descriptive term atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) for lesions falling short of IDC‐P but containing more atypia than typically seen in high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Lesions previously regarded as cribriform patterns of HGPIN are now included in the AIP category. This review discusses these developments, summarising the existing literature, as well as the emerging morphological and molecular data that underpins the classification and prognostication of prostatic carcinoma.
This article provides an update on the key changes to the classification, diagnosis and prognostication of prostate carcinoma in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems. These include new subtypes, terminology changes and discussion of current issues regarding grading, tumour growth patterns and IDC‐P.
