Pleural fluid metastasis of plasmacytoid urothelial carcinoma in comparison to micropapillary and conventional high‐grade urothelial carcinoma: Cytologic and immuonohistochemical findings

• Published in: Diagnostic cytopathology Vol. 50; no. 9; pp. E248 - E254
• Main Authors: Wang, Brant G., Woodward, Kimberly, Menezes, Geetha, Wang, Zoe Q., He, Rui, Li, Wenping
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-09-2022; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Bladder cancer; Cancer; carcinoma; Cytokeratin; cytology; immunohistochemistry; Metastasis; micropapillary; plasmacytoid; pleural; urothelial; cytology; carcinoma; metastasis; micropapillary; pleural; immunohistochemistry; urothelial; plasmacytoid
• ISSN: 8755-1039; 1097-0339
• DOI: 10.1002/dc.24975

Plasmacytoid urothelial carcinoma (PUC) is a rare but clinically aggressive variant of high‐grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). Cytological features include single plasmacytoid neoplastic cells with N:C ratio around 0.5, eccentric nuclei, nuclear hyperchromasia, irregular nuclear membrane, and vacuolated cytoplasm. Micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (MPUC) is another clinically aggressive variant of HGUC that shares some overlapping features of PUC. The diagnosis of these two aggressive variants in pleural effusions can be challenging due to features mimicking adenocarcinoma, unusual immunochemistry profile, and confusion with differential diagnoses, especially when pertinent clinical information is unavailable. We present report on one case each of pleural fluid metastasis of PUC and MPUC respectively, and compare the findings with that of a metastatic conventional HGUC originally thought to be metastatic adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis of PUC was confirmed with immunohistochemical studies showing expression for cytokeratin, GATA‐3, uroplakin II, and CD138, diminished or loss of E‐cadherin membranous expression, negative expression for p63, p53, Epicam‐BerEP4, Epicam‐MOC31, and p120. The diagnosis of MPUC was confirmed with immunostain profile similar to that of PUC except positive stain for E‐cadherin, p120, and p53. The diagnosis of HGUC was confirmed with immunohistochemical studies showing expression for cytokeratin, GATA‐3, uroplakin II, p63, Epicam‐BerEP4 (focal weak), and Epicam‐MOC31. Our cases of metastatic urothelial carcinoma showed features mimicking adenocarcinoma and others, especially the MPUC and HGUC were diagnosed without prior tissue diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. This report emphasizes the cytohistological and immunohistochemical details of urothelial carcinoma involving effusion fluid and discusses potential pitfalls in diagnosis.