Data Set for the Reporting of Carcinoma of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter—Nephroureterectomy and Ureterectomy Specimens: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

Central pathology review and its prognostic value in upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients: a nationwide multi-institutional study

The prognostic value of central pathology review in upper urinary tract cancer (UTUC) remains inadequately addressed in existing literature. In this study, we conducted an extensive central pathology review and presented its influence on multi-center UTUC studies. We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy or segmental resection for UTUC to determine eligibility for central pathology review. In the Taiwan UTUC Collaboration cohort, 377 cases met the criteria for pathology review. We assessed agreement between pathologists using both the total percentage of agreement and simple kappa statistics. The prognostic implications of original and review pathology for various parameters were examined using the Cox regression model. This study included 209 female and 168 male participants. Pathology review revealed substantial interobserver variability in pT staging, with a particularly high rate of pT2 cases being upgraded to pT3 upon central review (17/70 pT2 stage made by local pathologists were finally confirmed as pT3 disease by the review pathologist). The local pathologist cohort identified fewer significant histological predictors in survival models compared to the review pathology cohort. Advanced pT stage, perineural invasion (PNI), and positive surgical margin were independent predictors of poorer overall survival and cancer-specific survival. PNI, lymphatic vascular invasion, and positive surgical margin were independent predictors of disease recurrence. Substantial interobserver variability in histological assessment underscores the importance of centralized pathology review for both multi-center studies and accurate post-operative management of UTUC patients. Advanced stage, perineural invasion, and margin status were significant histological predictors of oncological outcomes.

Macroscopy of specimens from the genitourinary system

Macroscopic specimen examination is often critical for accurate histopathology reporting but has generally received insufficient attention and may be delegated to inexperienced staff with limited guidance and supervision. This review discusses issues around macroscopic examination of some common urological specimens; highlighting findings that are critical for patient management and others that are clinically irrelevant. Macroscopic findings are of limited value in completely submitted radical prostatectomy specimens but may be critical in orchidectomy specimens where identification of focal non-seminomatous components can significantly impact patient management. The maximum tumour dimension is often an important prognostic indicator, but specimen dimensions are generally of little clinical utility. Specimens should be carefully examined and judiciously sampled to identify clinically important focal abnormalities such as sarcomatoid change in a renal cell carcinoma and a minor non-seminomatous component in a predominant testicular seminoma. Meticulous macroscopic examination is key as less than 0.2% of the specimen (or macroscopically abnormal area) would be histologically examined even if the entire specimen/abnormal area is submitted for microscopic examination. Retroperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection specimens for testicular cancer must be handled very differently from other lymph nodal block dissections. Current sampling protocols for transurethral resection of prostate specimens that are based on pre-MRI era data need to be reconsidered because they were specifically designed to detect occult prostate cancer, which would amount to histological cancer screening. Prostatic sampling of cystoprostatectomy specimens should be directed at accurately staging the known bladder cancer rather than detection of incidental prostate cancer.

Primary urothelial carcinoma of the ureter without concurrent renal pelvic or bladder carcinoma: A contemporary clinicopathologic analysis

Primary urothelial carcinoma (UCa) of the ureter is relatively uncommon, comprising less than 10% of all urinary tract tumors. Typically, ureteral UCa is found in association with other urinary tract tumors, such as renal pelvic or bladder UCa, making it challenging to analyze the clinicopathologic features in isolation. With only a few small case series and case reports available, our understanding of primary ureteral UCa is limited. Herein, we conducted one of the largest studies to date of primary ureteral UCa without concurrent renal pelvic or bladder UCa. Clinicopathologic parameters including extent of invasion, lymphovascular invasion, variant histology, presence of UCa in situ, inverted growth pattern, and clinical follow-up information were obtained. Ninety-seven cases were included in the study. Thirty-nine cases (40%) showed invasion, the preponderance of which invaded lamina propria (15%; 15/97), followed by periureteral soft tissue/adipose (14%; 14/97), muscularis propria (9%; 9/39), and seminal vesicle invasion (1%; 1/97). Clinical follow-up data was available for 80/89 (89%) patients with a mean duration of 35 months (range: 1-206 months). Metastatic UCa developed in 28/89 (35%) patients, 20/28 (71%) of which had invasive disease at presentation. Of the 17 (21%) patients who died, 12 (71%) initially presented with invasive UCa. Although more patients had non-invasive UCa, the propensity for worse outcomes in patients with invasive disease is greater compared to other urinary tract sites. These findings further emphasize the importance of early recognition of these tumors, in view of the relatively high preponderance of advanced disease and mortality in a subset of these patients.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2020 Update

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Panel on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma (UTUC) has prepared updated guidelines to aid clinicians in the current evidence-based management of UTUC and to incorporate recommendations into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the EAU guidelines on UTUC as an aid to clinicians.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The recommendations provided in the current guidelines are based on a thorough review of available UTUC guidelines and articles identified following a systematic search of Medline. Data on urothelial malignancies and UTUC were searched using the following keywords: urinary tract cancer, urothelial carcinomas, upper urinary tract carcinoma, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder cancer, chemotherapy, ureteroscopy, nephroureterectomy, neoplasm, adjuvant treatment, instillation, recurrence, risk factors, and survival. References were weighted by a panel of experts.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Owing to the rarity of UTUC, there are insufficient data to provide strong recommendations. The 2017 tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) classification is recommended. Recommendations are given for diagnosis and risk stratification as well as for radical and conservative treatment, and prognostic factors are discussed. A single postoperative dose of intravesical mitomycin after nephroureterectomy reduces the risk of bladder tumour recurrence. Kidney-sparing management should be offered as a primary treatment option to patients with low-risk tumour and two functional kidneys. After radical nephroureterectomy, cisplatin-based chemotherapy is indicated in locally advanced UTUC.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines contain information on the management of individual patients according to a current standardised approach. Urologists should take into account the specific clinical characteristics of each patient when determining the optimal treatment regimen, based on the proposed risk stratification of these tumours.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract is rare, but because 60% of these tumours are invasive at diagnosis, an appropriate diagnosis is most important. A number of known risk factors exist.