Pathobiology : journal of immunopathology, molecular and cellular biology · 2021
Multifocal Urinary Tract Metastasis of Colorectal Carcinoma.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fejes Zsuzsanna, Király István Előd, Fehér Ádám Miklós, Kovács Péter György, Gyuris Zoltán, Sükösd Farkas, Torday László, Kuthi Levente
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Secondary urinary tract tumors are uncommon findings and mainly evolve by direct invasion from adjacent organs. Actual metastatic involvement often develops in the urinary bladder, while the upper urinary tract is infrequently affected. In addition, the lungs, breast, and prostate gland are the usual primary sites. Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) may spread to the ureter directly or seeds via vascular or lymphatic channels. It may pose struggles in the differential diagnosis because CRC shares standard pathologic features with the primary adenocarcinoma of the urinary tract.
CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of an 81-year-old man who was referred to our hospital with a distal ureteral tumor that was treated by a ureteronephrectomy. The histopathological and genetic analysis established the diagnosis of metastatic CRC along with 3 metastases in the renal pelvis.
CONCLUSION: This rare case highlights the limitations of conventional histological processing, including immunohistochemistry, and it underlines the role of molecular investigations in certain circumstances.
CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of an 81-year-old man who was referred to our hospital with a distal ureteral tumor that was treated by a ureteronephrectomy. The histopathological and genetic analysis established the diagnosis of metastatic CRC along with 3 metastases in the renal pelvis.
CONCLUSION: This rare case highlights the limitations of conventional histological processing, including immunohistochemistry, and it underlines the role of molecular investigations in certain circumstances.