Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
[Solitary fibrous tumor of the prostate mimicking a tumor of the vesicoprostatic junction. Case report].
Клинический случайАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Díaz-Fuentes Huber, Zapot-Martínez Juan Carlos, Cabrera-Mora Norma Alejandra, Ramos-Arceo Eduardo, Tavares-García Juana Sonia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Differentiating among the various neoplasms of the urinary and reproductive system in adult patients is essential for establishing an accurate diagnosis and determining the appropriate therapeutic strategy.
CLINICAL CASE: 71-year-old man with a history of Gleason 10 (5+5) prostate adenocarcinoma who developed a suspicious lesion at the vesicoprostatic junction, initially considered a urothelial carcinoma based on cystoscopy findings and immunohistochemistry. Following a multidisciplinary evaluation, a radical cystoprostatectomy with lymphadenectomy was performed, which subsequently revealed a solitary fibrous tumor of the prostate, a rare entity with benign behavior. Immunohistochemical analysis was key to the final diagnosis, differentiating this benign lesion from the initially suspected urothelial origin.
CONCLUSIONS: This case underscores the importance of a comprehensive and meticulous approach in the evaluation of atypical prostate lesions, as misdiagnoses can lead to overtreatment. The experience reported here highlights the need to consider solitary fibrous tumors in the differential diagnosis of prostatic stromal tumors.
CLINICAL CASE: 71-year-old man with a history of Gleason 10 (5+5) prostate adenocarcinoma who developed a suspicious lesion at the vesicoprostatic junction, initially considered a urothelial carcinoma based on cystoscopy findings and immunohistochemistry. Following a multidisciplinary evaluation, a radical cystoprostatectomy with lymphadenectomy was performed, which subsequently revealed a solitary fibrous tumor of the prostate, a rare entity with benign behavior. Immunohistochemical analysis was key to the final diagnosis, differentiating this benign lesion from the initially suspected urothelial origin.
CONCLUSIONS: This case underscores the importance of a comprehensive and meticulous approach in the evaluation of atypical prostate lesions, as misdiagnoses can lead to overtreatment. The experience reported here highlights the need to consider solitary fibrous tumors in the differential diagnosis of prostatic stromal tumors.