Page 106 - TD-4-3
P. 106

Tumor Discovery                                                         Unusual cause of biliary obstruction



            metastasis occurring in 3% of cases.  Case reports and   cancer that determine its risk of progression.  In this case,
                                                                                                  12
                                          2
            small case series suggest that MBTO secondary to UC   although the patient did not report urinary symptoms,
            accounts for <1% of all MBTOs, which are most commonly   the positive staining for p40, p63, high-molecular-weight
            caused by pancreatic, cholangiocarcinoma, or metastatic   keratin, and GATA-3 in the tissues strongly indicates
            colorectal cancers. 3                              a urothelial origin. Therefore, further investigation for

              Initial diagnosis involves distinguishing between   primary urothelial cancer should be the next step.
            benign and malignant conditions, often achieved through   The most prevalent bladder tumor histologies include
            magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)   UC, characterized by invasion into the muscularis propria
            or ERCP. Both MRCP and ERCP are preferred over CT   and representing the majority of cases in the US and
            scans due to their higher sensitivity and specificity, with   Europe. Squamous cell carcinomas, originating from the
            85% and 71% for MRCP and sensitivity of 75% for ERCP,   urothelium, constitute a small percentage of cases, while
            respectively.   Recent  studies  have  shown  that  MRCP’s   adenocarcinomas, exhibiting a glandular phenotype, are
                     3,4
            sensitivity exceeds 96% and specificity reaches 85% for   rarer still, typically arising from the bladder’s urothelium
            differentiating between benign and MBTOs.  In addition,   or remnants of the urachus. 13,14
                                               2,4
            ERCP’s  diagnostic  accuracy is  enhanced  by  adjunct
            techniques such as EUS and intraductal ultrasound. 5  This case underscores the importance of considering
                                                               distant metastases, particularly from bladder cancer, in
              Metastatic UC to the liver typically demonstrates   the differential diagnosis of MBTO and emphasizes the
            hypovascularity on contrast-enhanced CT, with minimal   significance of comprehensive diagnostic approaches
            arterial enhancement and progressive enhancement   and  multidisciplinary  collaboration  for  optimal  patient
            during  the  portal venous  and  delayed  phases.  On  MRI,   management.
            lesions appear hypointense on T1-weighted images, mildly
            hyperintense on T2-weighted images, and exhibit restricted   4. Conclusion
            diffusion  on diffusion-weighted imaging sequences,   MBTO is a common presentation of hepato-pancreato-
            with delayed progressive contrast enhancement. Unlike   biliary cancer. However, a distant metastasis could mimic
            hypervascular metastases from neuroendocrine tumors
            or renal cell carcinoma, urothelial metastases lack early   the presentation. Gastrointestinal workup with ERCP and
            arterial phase enhancement. On EUS, they present as   EUS for tissue sampling or cytology has low yield in terms
            hypoechoic, stiff, and hypovascular lesions, consistent with   of diagnosing MBTO. Even if the result is negative, further
            other adenocarcinoma metastases. 6-9               workup of tissue biopsy should be done for the definitive
                                                               diagnosis. If metastasis is suspected, investigations for
              When malignancy is suspected, tissue sampling    primary cancer based on pathology results should be the
            becomes  crucial  to  refine  the  diagnosis.  Brush  cytology   next step.
            coupled with forceps or needle biopsy is recommended
            over brush cytology alone due to its increased sensitivity   Acknowledgments
            and specificity. While brush cytology typically exhibits   The authors would like to thank the Department of
            sensitivity rates around or below 50%, its specificity   Pathology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
            remains notably high at 95%.  Forceps or needle biopsy
                                    10
            can further elevate sensitivity to 70% and specificity   (TTUHSC), for providing the original pathology images
            to 100%, respectively.  Percutaneous transhepatic   used in this manuscript. In addition, we extend our
                                10
            cholangiography serves as a secondary diagnostic option   gratitude to Nutthamon Aroonwon for her assistance in
            when ERCP is unsuccessful or infeasible and the patient   editing and formatting the figures.
                                          2
            has potential bleeding complications.  In our case, while   Funding
            the EUS and brush biopsy yielded negative results,
            the clinical presentation strongly suggested cancer,   None.
            necessitating a pathology diagnosis to guide appropriate
            treatment. Consequently, a liver biopsy was performed as   Conflict of interest
            the next step.                                     The authors declare they have no competing interests.
              In addition, positive tumor markers can help diagnose   Author contributions
            UC. Some tumor markers with high sensitivities (>75%)
            for UC include uroplakin II, p40, p63, GATA 3, and   Conceptualization:  Sakditad  Saowapa,  Chalothorn
            CK903. 11-13  In addition, there are a variety of histological   Wannaphut
            variants, subtypes, and immunophenotypes of urothelial   Formal analysis: Natchaya Polpichai, Pharit Siladech


            Volume 4 Issue 3 (2025)                         98                           doi: 10.36922/TD025070011
   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111