Clinicopathologic study of 60 cases of urothelial neoplasms with inverted growth patterns: Reclassification by international consultation on urologic disease (ICUD) recommendations.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most urothelial neoplasms of the bladder show an exophytic papillary pattern, but some show an inverted growth pattern. In 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a detailed histologic classification system for papillary urothelial neoplasms, but not for inverted forms. The International Consultation on Urologic Disease (ICUD) recommendations of 2012 are applicable to inverted/endophytic papillary lesions as follows 1) inverted papilloma (IP), 2) inverted papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (IPUNLMP), 3) inverted papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, non-invasive (IPUCLG-NI), 4) inverted papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, non-invasive (IPUCHG-NI), 5) inverted papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, invasive (IPUCHG-I). However, only atypical cellular morphology was considered for classification in the 2012 ICUD recommendations, and data to support to validate this new grading system are lacking. METHODS: Sixty cases of inverted urothelial papillary tumors were classified into 5 categories according to 2012 ICUD and 2016 WHO/ISUP recommendations to evaluate their clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemical characteristics. Two subgroups were defined as subgroup 1, IP and IPUNLMP, and subgroup 2, IPUCLG-NI, IPUCHG-NI, and IPUCHG-I. Clinical features (age, sex, history of urothelial carcinoma, smoking history, size, and multifocality) and histologic features (nuclear pleomorphism, mitotic count, mitosis level, apoptosis, luminal necrosis, trabecular thickening, anastomosing trabeculae, hypercellularity, loss of polarity, peripheral palisading, palisading with central streaming, and discohesiveness) were evaluated. Immunohistochemical stains for CK20, CD44, P53, p16, Ki-67, cyclin D1 and c-erbB2 were performed. RESULTS: A total of 60 cases were classified as 10 cases of IP, 29 cases of IPUNLMPs, 15 cases of IPUCLG-NI, 4 cases of IPUCHG-NI, and 2 cases of IPUCHG-I. Compared to subgroup 1, subgroup 2 showed larger tumor size, more nuclear irregularity, higher mitotic count (hot spot and per 10 high power fields), more upper level mitosis (>1/2), and more frequent apoptosis, luminal necrosis, surface papillary component, trabecular thickening, anastomosing irregular trabeculae, hypercellularity, loss of polarity, peripheral palisading with central streaming, and discohesiveness, and absence of umbrella cells and urothelial eddies. CK20, Ki67, and c-erbB2 were the only markers that were differently expressed in the two subgroups, with more expression in subgroup 2. CONCLUSIONS: The 2012 ICUD recommendations are valid to classify inverted papillary urothelial tumors. However, other histologic features besides atypical cellular morphology should also be considered to distinguish subgroup 1 and subgroup 2 inverted papillary urothelial tumors.