Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Invasive Micropapillary Carcinoma of the Urinary Tract Among Urologic Pathologists

Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) of the urinary tract is a well-described variant of the urothelial carcinoma with aggressive clinical behavior. Recent studies have proposed that patients with IMPC on transurethral resection should be treated with radical cystectomy regardless of the pathologic stage. Despite the potentially important therapeutic implications of this diagnosis, interobserver variation in the diagnosis of IMPC has not been studied. Sixty digital images, each from hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides, representing 30 invasive urothelial carcinomas (2 images per case), were distributed to 14 genitourinary subspecialists and each pathologist was requested to classify cases as IMPC or not. These cases included “classic” IMPC (n=10) and urothelial carcinoma with retraction and variably sized nests that might potentially be regarded as IMPC (n=20). The following 13 morphologic features were recorded as positive/negative for all cases independent of the reviewers' diagnoses: columnar cells, elongate nests or processes, extensive stromal retraction, lumen formation with internal epithelial tufting, epithelial ring forms, intracytoplasmic vacuolization, multiple nests within the same lacunar space, back-to-back lacunar spaces, epithelial nest anastomosis/confluence, marked nuclear pleomorphism, peripherally oriented nuclei, randomly distributed nuclei, and tumor nest size. In addition, a mean tumor nest size was calculated for each image based on the number of nuclei spanning the width of the nests. Interobserver reproducibility was assessed and the morphologic features were correlated with the classic IMPC and nonclassic/potential IMPC groups. In addition, the relationships between morphologic features, pathologists' interpretations, and case type (classic IMPC vs. nonclassic/potential IMPC) were evaluated using unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis. Interobserver reproducibility for a diagnosis of IMPC in the 30 study cases was moderate (κ: 0.54). Although classification as IMPC among the 10 “classic” IMPC cases was relatively uniform (93% agreement), the classification in the subset of 20 invasive urothelial carcinomas with extensive retraction and varying sized tumor nests was more variable. Multiple nests within the same lacunar space had the highest association with a diagnosis of classic IMPC. These findings suggest that more study of IMPC is needed to identify the individual pathologic features that might potentially correlate with an aggressive outcome and response to intravesical therapy.

[1]  Mahul B Amin,et al.  Histological variants of urothelial carcinoma: diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic implications , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[2]  J. McKenney The Clinical Management of ???Superficial??? (???pT1/cT1) Micropapillary Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: Are Times Changing? , 2007 .

[3]  J. Maranchie,et al.  Clinical and pathological characteristics of micropapillary transitional cell carcinoma: a highly aggressive variant. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[4]  Mahul B. Amin,et al.  Micropapillary Variant of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder Histologic Pattern Resembling Ovarian Papillary Serous Carcinoma , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[5]  M. Tamura,et al.  Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the urinary bladder: An immunohistochemical study of neoplastic and stromal cells , 2006, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[6]  S. Suster,et al.  Micropapillary urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: Clinicopathologic study of five cases. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[7]  S. Suster,et al.  Micropapillary Urothelial Carcinoma of the Upper Urinary Tract , 2006 .

[8]  P. Tamboli,et al.  Micropapillary bladder cancer , 2007, Cancer.

[9]  A. Sangoi,et al.  Immunohistochemical comparison of MUC1, CA125, and Her2Neu in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the urinary tract and typical invasive urothelial carcinoma with retraction artifact , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[10]  L. Ylagan,et al.  Micropapillary Variant of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder , 2001, Acta Cytologica.

[11]  S. Johansson,et al.  Micropapillary bladder carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 20 cases. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[12]  T. Alkībay,et al.  Micropapillary Pattern in Urothelial Carcinoma: A Clinicopathological Analysis , 2009, Urologia Internationalis.

[13]  C. Patriarca,et al.  Are Invasive Micropapillary Carcinomas of Breast Really Composed of Papillae? , 2009, International journal of surgical pathology.

[14]  P. Tamboli,et al.  Micropapillary variant of urothelial carcinoma in the upper urinary tract: a clinicopathologic study of 11 cases. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[15]  J. Chin,et al.  Histologic variants of urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histology in bladder cancer. , 2013, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[16]  A. Marchevsky,et al.  Interobserver diagnostic variability at "moderate" agreement levels could significantly change the prognostic estimates of clinicopathologic studies: evaluation of the problem using evidence from patients with diffuse lung disease. , 2010, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[17]  L. Solin,et al.  Extensive Retraction Artifact Correlates With Lymphatic Invasion and Nodal Metastasis and Predicts Poor Outcome in Early Stage Breast Carcinoma , 2007, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  Paul J. L. Zhang,et al.  The Presence of Micropapillary Features and Retraction Artifact in Core Needle Biopsy Material Predicts Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Carcinoma , 2009, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  J. Droz,et al.  Micropapillary bladder cancer: a review of Léon Bérard Cancer Center experience , 2009, BMC urology.

[20]  H. Samaratunga,et al.  Micropapillary variant of urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder; a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study , 2004, Histopathology.

[21]  S. Suster,et al.  High-grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis: clinicopathologic study of 108 cases with emphasis on unusual morphologic variants , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[22]  C. Dinney,et al.  The impact of variant histology on the outcome of bladder cancer treated with curative intent. , 2009, Urologic oncology.

[23]  I. Alvarado-Cabrero,et al.  Micropapillary carcinoma of the urothelial tract. A clinicopathologic study of 38 cases. , 2005, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[24]  D. Visscher,et al.  Invasive Micropapillary Salivary Duct Carcinoma: A Distinct Histologic Variant With Biologic Significance , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  H. Wiśniewska,et al.  Muscle-invasive urothelial cell carcinoma of the human bladder: multidirectional differentiation and ability to metastasize. , 2007, Human pathology.

[26]  R. Millikan,et al.  The case for early cystectomy in the treatment of nonmuscle invasive micropapillary bladder carcinoma. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[27]  D. Hansel,et al.  Emerging Concepts in Micropapillary Urothelial Carcinoma , 2010, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[28]  K. Iczkowski,et al.  Divergent differentiation in urothelial carcinoma and other bladder cancer subtypes with selected mimics , 2009, Histopathology.

[29]  H. Sasano,et al.  Primary invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the colon , 2005, Histopathology.

[30]  Jungsil Ro,et al.  Micropapillary Component in Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Distinctive Histologic Feature With Possible Prognostic Significance , 2002, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[31]  S. Johansson,et al.  Micropapillary carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[32]  M. Furihata,et al.  KL-6 is another useful marker in assessing a micropapillary pattern in carcinomas of the breast and urinary bladder, but not the colon , 2009, Medical Molecular Morphology.

[33]  F. Tavassoli,et al.  Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. , 1993, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[34]  I. Shih,et al.  Immunohistochemical Panel to Identify the Primary Site of Invasive Micropapillary Carcinoma , 2009, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  A. Lopez‐Beltran,et al.  Invasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. , 2010, Human pathology.

[36]  H. Nassar Carcinomas with Micropapillary Morphology: Clinical Significance and Current Concepts , 2004, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[37]  Z. Wolski,et al.  Usefulness of histologic homogeneity estimation of muscle-invasive urinary bladder cancer in an individual prognosis: a mapping study. , 2005, Urology.

[38]  J. McKenney,et al.  Morphologic Expressions of Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ: A Detailed Evaluation of Its Histologic Patterns With Emphasis on Carcinoma In Situ With Microinvasion , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[39]  D. Grignon,et al.  Pathogenesis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma: role of MUC1 glycoprotein , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[40]  R. Montironi,et al.  Pathological variants of invasive bladder cancer according to their suggested clinical significance , 2008, BJU international.

[41]  A. Parwani,et al.  Micropapillary urothelial carcinoma: clinico-pathologic review. , 2009, Pathology, research and practice.