Dataset Information

Anterior wall adenocarcinoma of bladder with similar clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics as common bladder carcinomas should not be treated as or classified into urachal adenocarcinomas.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To discuss whether the dome or anterior wall of bladder adenocarcinoma (BAC) should be classified into urachal carcinoma (UrC) and the relationship of primary tumor location (PTL) as well as treatment with survival.

Methods

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database was examined for eligible patients from 1975 to 2016. Patients were classified into adenocarcinoma originating from the urachus (UAC), the dome (D-BAC), the anterior wall (A-BAC), and the other sites adenocarcinoma of the bladder (O-BAC). The clinicopathological features, treatment, and survival were compared among the groups.

Results

Comparable clinicopathologic features were obtained between UAC and D-BAC, which were different from those of A-BAC and O-BAC; otherwise, the latter two had similar clinicopathologic features. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses indicated that PTL was an independent predictor for survival. O-BAC conferred the worst prognosis then followed by A-BAC, D-BAC, and UAC. For non-metastatic UAC or D-BAC, partial cystectomy (with an en bloc resection of the urachus and umbilicus) is optimal for survival. However, the worse survival of non-metastatic D-BAC (compared with UAC) suggested different modalities, maybe more intensive surgery approaches, should be considered for D-BAC.

Conclusion

This study illustrates that PTL of UAC and BAC was an independent predictor for survival. A-BAC had comparable characters and prognosis with O-BAC and should not be classified into and treated as UrC. For non-metastatic disease, non-metastatic D-BAC may need more intensive modality.

SUBMITTER: Zhou YW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366075 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA) is a rare amphicrine tumor and difficult to diagnose. GCA is traditionally found in the appendix, but extra-appendiceal GCA may be underestimated. Intestinal adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell component is also very rare, and some signet ring cell carcinomas are well cohesive, having some similar morphological features to GCAs. It is necessary to differentiate GCA from intestinal adenocarcinomas with cohesive signet ring cell component (IACSRCC). The goal of this study is to find occurrence of extra-appendiceal GCA and characterize the histological, immunohistochemical, transcriptional, and immune landscape of GCA. We collected 12 cases of GCAs and 10 IACSRCCs and reviewed the clinicopathologic characters of these cases. Immunohistochemical stains were performed with synaptophysin, chromogranin A, CD56, somatostatin receptor (SSTR) 2, and Ki-67. Whole transcriptome RNA-sequencing was performed, and data were used to analyze differential gene expression and predict immune cell infiltration levels in GCA and IACSRCC. RNA-sequencing data for colorectal adenocarcinoma were gathered from TCGA data portal. Of the 12 patients with GCA, there were 4 women and 8 men. There were three appendiceal cases and nine extra-appendiceal cases. GCAs were immunohistochemically different from IACSRCC. GCA also had different levels of B-cell and CD8+ T-cell infiltration compared to both colorectal adenocarcinoma and cohesive IACSRCCs. Differential gene expression analysis showed distinct gene expression patterns in GCA compared to colorectal adenocarcinoma, with a number of cancer-related differentially expressed genes, including upregulation of TMEM14A, GOLT1A, DSCC1, and HSD17B8, and downregulation of KCNQ1OT1 and MXRA5. GCA also had several differentially expressed genes compared to IACSRCCs, including upregulation of PRSS21, EPPIN, RPRM, TNFRSF12A, and BZRAP1, and downregulation of HIST1H2BE, TCN1, AC069363.1, RP11-538I12.2, and REG4. In summary, the number of extra-appendiceal GCA was underestimated in Chinese patients. GCA can be seen as a distinct morphological, immunohistochemical, transcriptomic, and immunological entity. The classic low-grade component of GCA and the immunoreactivity for neuroendocrine markers are the key points to diagnosing GCA.

Project description:Endometrial carcinoma (EC) molecular classification based on four molecular subclasses identified in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has gained relevance in recent years due to its prognostic utility and potential to predict benefit from adjuvant treatment. While most ECs can be classified based on a single classifier (POLE exonuclease domain mutations - POLEmut, MMR deficiency - MMRd, p53 abnormal - p53abn), a small but clinically relevant group of tumours harbour more than one molecular classifying feature and are referred to as 'multiple-classifier' ECs. We aimed to describe the clinicopathological and molecular features of multiple-classifier ECs with abnormal p53 (p53abn). Within a cohort of 3518 molecularly profiled ECs, 107 (3%) tumours displayed p53abn in addition to another classifier(s), including 64 with MMRd (MMRd-p53abn), 31 with POLEmut (POLEmut-p53abn), and 12 with all three aberrations (MMRd-POLEmut-p53abn). MMRd-p53abn ECs and POLEmut-p53abn ECs were mostly grade 3 endometrioid ECs, early stage, and frequently showed morphological features characteristic of MMRd or POLEmut ECs. 18/28 (60%) MMRd-p53abn ECs and 7/15 (46.7%) POLEmut-p53abn ECs showed subclonal p53 overexpression, suggesting that TP53 mutation was a secondary event acquired during tumour progression. Hierarchical clustering of TCGA ECs by single nucleotide variant (SNV) type and somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) revealed that MMRd-p53abn tumours mostly clustered with single-classifier MMRd tumours (20/23) rather than single-classifier p53abn tumours (3/23), while POLEmut-p53abn tumours mostly clustered with single-classifier POLEmut tumours (12/13) and seldom with single-classifier p53abn tumours (1/13) (both p ≤ 0.001, chi-squared test). Finally, the clinical outcome of patients with MMRd-p53abn and POLEmut-p53abn ECs [stage I 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 92.2% and 94.1%, respectively] was significantly different from single-classifier p53abn EC (stage I RFS 70.8%, p = 0.024 and p = 0.050, respectively). Our results support the classification of MMRd-p53abn EC as MMRd and POLEmut-p53abn EC as POLEmut. © 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.