Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Urol Oncol. 2019 Feb 16;37(6):354.e19–354.e26. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.026

OUTCOMES OF NON-METASTATIC MICROPAPILLARY VARIANT UPPER TRACT UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA

Jonathan J Duplisea 1, Firas G Petros 1, Roger Li 1, Bryan Fellman 2, Charles C Guo 3, Bogdan A Czerniak 3, Arlene O Siefker-Radtke 4, John C Araujo 4, Colin P N Dinney 1, Surena F Matin 1
PMCID: PMC6511295  NIHMSID: NIHMS1521946  PMID: 30777393

Abstract

Purpose:

Micropapillary variant upper tract urothelial cancer (MP-UTUC) is a rare malignancy with little known regarding its clinical course and/or optimal treatment. In this case series, we describe patient characteristics, surgical treatment, oncologic outcomes, and response to perioperative chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted a review to identify patients with MP-UTUC treated at our center between January 1994 and October 2017. Clinicopathologic data was obtained. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards, and nearest neighbor matching were used to examine the cohort.

Results:

Eighteen, (4.3%) of 416 patients were found to have MP-UTUC at our institution over a twenty-three year period. The majority of patients had ≥pT3 disease at the time of extirpative surgery (13/18, 72%) and 1 was identified as MP-UTUC prior to surgery. Seven patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and six patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median overall, cancer specific, and recurrence free survival were 3.29, 3.29, and 1.69 years, respectively for MP-UTUC. There was no survival difference between conventional (C-UTUC) and MP-UTUC when matched for age, stage, grade, LVI, and margins (HR 1.18, p=0.567). No MP-UTUC patients receiving NAC had apparent pathologic down staging, and of those receiving AC two-thirds died of disease within two years.

Conclusions:

MP-UTUC is a rare, and in most cases aggressive malignancy that commonly presents as locally advanced disease. In this case series, MP-UTUC does not appear to respond to perioperative chemotherapy as NAC did not result in apparent pathologic down staging and the majority of those receiving AC died from MP-UTUC.

Keywords: upper tract urothelial cell carcinoma, renal pelvis cancer, ureter cancer, micropapillary, chemotherapy

Introduction

Historically, studies examining treatment and outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) have viewed the disease as one histologic entity, not exploring the impact of histologic variants. To date, little is known regarding the clinical course of patients with variant upper tract histology.

Micropapillary urothelial cell variant was first reported by Amin et al. in 1994 [1]. In the subsequent three decades, studies have highlighted the aggressive behavior of this variant urothelial histology [2, 3]. The incidence of MP-UTUC is very low resulting in a paucity of data addressing clinical behavior and/ or the optimal treatment approach, in particular the use of perioperative chemotherapy.

Currently, the roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, AC) are rapidly evolving in UTUC, with level 1 evidence recently reported for both. A phase II NAC trial showed a pathologic complete response rate (pCR) of 14% and 60% down staging to ≤ypT1 disease in those with high-grade (HG) disease. Another randomized AC trial demonstrated improved progression free survival in those at high risk of recurrence after nephroureterectomy receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.49, p=0.003) [4, 5]. Prior series have also reported pathologic down staging and improved survival in high-risk patients with NAC utilization [6, 7]. Importantly, these studies do not specifically address the role of perioperative chemotherapy in patients with variant upper tract histology.

In this series, we describe the treatment, oncologic outcomes, and impact of perioperative chemotherapy in this rare group of patients. We also compare recurrence/survival outcomes to a matched cohort of conventional UTUC patients (C-UTUC).

Materials and Methods

Population

After receiving institutional ethics approval, we retrospectively identified patients with MP-UTUC treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) by reviewing the records of patients diagnosed with MP variant histology between January 1994 to October 2017. The following clinical variables were recorded: age, gender, clinical T stage and grade (based on ureteroscopic biopsy when available), clinical node status, hydronephrosis, NAC, surgical technique, AC, recurrence, date of last visit, or date and cause of death when available. Patients with visceral metastasis at time of surgery were excluded.

Pathologic evaluation

All surgical specimens were evaluated by dedicated genitourinary pathologists. Pathologic re-review was performed for patients undergoing surgery at outside institutions (OSI). The following pathologic variables were assessed: TNM staging, histologic grade, disease location, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), carcinoma in situ (CIS), and surgical margin status.

Survival outcomes and comparison to conventional UTUC

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the patient cohort. The methods of Kaplan and Meier were used to estimate survival outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to estimate the Hazards ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of surgery to date of death or date of last follow-up. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was measured from date of surgery to date of first recurrence on imaging, date of death, or date of last follow-up. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was measured from date of surgery to date of first death due to disease, date of other death (censored), or date of last follow-up. CSS was also estimated using competing risk regression (Fine and Gray) to model the cumulative incidence of recurrence. Death due to other causes was considered a competing event for death due to disease. To correct for biases in the data, nearest neighbor matched (conventional and micropapillary) pairs were first obtained. All models estimated standard errors using sandwich estimators. Variables used for matching were, age, pT grade, LVI, pN, and margins. With exception of matching, all statistical analyses were performed using Stata/MP v15.0 (College Station, TX). Nearest neighbor matching was carried out using the MatchIt package in R (MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Baseline demographics of MP-UTUC patients

Over a twenty three-year period (1994-2017), 19 cases of MP-UTUC were identified at our institution from a total of 416 UTUC patients, representing 4.6% of all cases. Eighteen cases were for definitive treatment and one case for palliation in a patient with metastatic disease and refractory hematuria. Of the eighteen patients, sixteen (88.9%) were treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and two (11.1%) with ureterectomy. The majority of procedures (13/18, 72.2%) were performed using an open technique. One patient had a concurrent radical cystectomy as tumor invasion into the bladder was noted at the time of RNU. Ten patients had their surgery performed at our center, while the remaining eight had surgery at an OSI and were referred to MDACC for further management. Demographics and clinical characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Median age was 69 years (IQR 59.5-73.3) and the median follow-up was 25.2 months (IQR 11-63).

Table 1 –

Baseline demographics and clinical staging

Case No. Age at
diagnosis
Year of
treatment
Sex Staging
technique
Biopsy
Stage
Biopsy
Grade
Biopsy
Histology
Clinical node
status
Hydronephrosis Surgical
technique
Surgery
location
1 63 2008 M NA NA NA NA N1 Yes open MDACC
2 51 2017 M URS* NA NA NA N0 No open MDACC
3 53 2011 M URS Tx HG UCC N1 No lap MDACC
4 72 1996 M Brushing NA HG NA N0 Yes open MDACC
5 76 1997 M NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
6 74 1999 M NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
7 54 2001 M NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
8 69 2005 M NA NA NA NA N0 No lap OSI
9 58 2000 M NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
10 73 1999 F NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
11 70 2006 M NA NA NA NA Nx NA open OSI
12 69 2008 F URS Tx HG UCC N1 No open MDACC
13 67 2013 F URS Tx HG UCC N0 Yes open MDACC
14 72 2009 M URS Ta HG MPUC N1 No lap MDACC
15 75 2010 M URS T1 HG UCC N0 No lap MDACC
16 60 2015 M URS Tis HG CIS N0 Yes lap MDACC
17 76 1994 M Upper tract cytology NA HG NA N1 Yes open MDACC
18 61 2005 M Brushing NA HG NA N1 Yes open OSI
*

URS without biopsy

Tx-depth of invasion not identified

URS - ureteroscopy

OSI – outside institution

MDACC – MD Anderson Cancer Center

HG – high grade

NA – not available

Perioperative data

Nine patients (50%) had clinical tumor staging information available for review prior to extirpative surgery, of whom six underwent ureteroscopy with biopsy and three had upper tract cytology and/or brushings. All staging samples showed high-grade urothelial tumor and only one patient (0.5% of all clinical HG tumors) was found to have MP-UTUC histology on ureteroscopic biopsy.

Twelve (66.7%) patients had pre-operative imaging available for re-review, of whom five (41.7%) were clinically node positive. Hydronephrosis was identified in six (50%) patients with imaging available.

Seven (38.9%) patients received NAC, including the one patient with clinically identified MP-UTUC. NAC regimens, number of cycles, and clinical responses are listed in Table 3. Six patients (33.3%) received AC (Table 3). An additional three (16.7%) patients received chemotherapy following the development of metastatic disease.

Table 3 –

Perioperative chemotherapy patients and regimens

Case No. Age Tumor grade TNM NAC/AC Chemotherapy Regimen Number of cycles Cr (prechemo) Nodal status Initial response
1 63 HG pT3N3R0 AC gemcitabine/cisplatin 4 1.3 pN3 Stable
2 51 HG pT2N1R0 AC ddMVAC 4 1.3 pN1 Stable
5 76 HG pT3NxR0 AC ddMVAC + gemcitabine/cisplatin 2+2+1 1.7 Nx Progressed
6 74 HG pT4NxR1 AC taxol/carbo + taxol/adriamycin 3+3 2.1 Nx Progressed
10 73 HG pT3N1R0 AC ddMVAC + gemcitabine/taxol 2+ 1.5 pN1 Progressed
11 70 HG pT3N3R0 AC gemcitabine/taxol/adriamycin + gemcitabine/cisplatin 1+3 2.0 pN3 Stable
12 69 HG cTxN1 NAC ddMVAC + gemcitabine/ifosfamide/adriamycin 3+3 0.8 cN1 Complete nodal response
13 67 HG cTxN0 NAC cisplatin/gemcitabine/ifosfamide 1 1.08 cN0 Discontinue d secondary to nephrotoxicity
14 72 HG cTaN1 NAC ddMVAC 4 0.9 cN1 Partial nodal response
15 75 HG cT1N0 NAC ddMVAC 2 0.69 cN0 Stable disease
16 60 HG cTisN0 NAC ddMVAC 4 0.91 cN0 Stable disease
17 76 HG NA NAC 5-fluorouracil,adriamycin, cisplatin (FAP) 2 1.2 cN1 Partial nodal response
18 61 HG NA NAC cisplatin/gemcitabine/ifosfamide + taxol/ifosfamide/cisplatin + ddMVAC 6+2+2 0.8 cN1 Complete nodal response

HG – high grade

NAC – neoadjuvant chemotherapy

AC – adjuvant chemotherapy

ddMVAC – dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, cisplatin

Cr – creatinine

Pathologic findings

The majority of patients had ≥pT3 disease (13/18, 72.2%). Most tumors were located within the renal pelvis (10/18, 55.6%). Thirteen (72%) of patients had extensive MP-UTUC (defined as >25%). No patient had tumor down staging to ≤ypT1 following the use of NAC. Three positive margins (16.7%) were recorded, all ureteral. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) was performed in fourteen patients (77.8%) with a median lymph node count of 10 (IQR 5-19). Six (42.9%) patients had lymph node positive disease. All pathological information is listed in Table 2.

Table 2 –

Pathologic information

Case No. pT-stage classification Percent micropapillary Histologic grade LVI CIS Margin pN
1 pT3 <25 HG Yes Yes Negative N3
2 pT2 <25 HG No Yes Negative N1
3 pT3 50 HG No Yes Negative N0
4 pT3 20 HG No No Negative N0
5 pT3 70 HG Yes Yes Negative Nx
6 pT4 50 HG Yes Yes Positive Nx
7 pT3 30 HG Yes No Negative Nx
8 pT3 30 HG Yes No Positive Nx
9 pT2 50 HG No No Positive N0
10 pT3 60 HG Yes No Negative N1
11 pT3 30 HG Yes No Negative N3
12 ypT2 <25 HG No No Negative N0
13 ypT2 25 HG No No Negative N0
14 ypT3 30 HG No No Negative N0
15 ypT2 50 HG No Yes Negative N0
16 ypT3 <25 HG Yes No Negative N2
17 ypT3 80 HG Yes Yes Negative N3
18 ypT3 <25 HG Yes No Negative N3

HG – high grade

ypT = post neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Recurrence & Outcomes

Seven (38.9%) patients recurred following surgery, the majority (71%) within one year. Four patients recurred distantly, two locoregionally, and one patient with both distant and locoregional recurrence (Table 4). Median survival for all patients was 3.29 years.

Table 4 –

List of recurrences

Case No. pStage Site of recurrence Time to recurrence (months)
6 pT4NxR1 Pelvic lymph nodes + pulmonary 11.5
7 pT3NxR0 Retroperitoneal lymph nodes 1
8 pT3NxR1 Bladder + peritoneal 7.6
9 pT2N0R0 Retroperitoneal lymph nodes 1.3
10 pT3N1R0 Pulmonary 0.2
11 pT3N3R0 Pulmonary 39.4
12 ypT2N0R0 Pulmonary 14.7

MP vs Conventional UTUC – survival outcomes of matched cohorts

A total of 18 MP-UTUC patients were matched 1:2 to C-UTUC patients. All matching variables and NAC utilization were well balanced across groups (Table 5). The median follow up time for all subjects was 2.4 years. Of note, one patient in the C-UTUC group was lost to follow-up after surgery and therefore not included in survival analysis. The median OS for the conventional UTUC group was 3.08 years (95% CI: 1.41 – 6.08) vs. 3.29 (95% CI: 1.69 – 4.77) years for the micropapillary group (HR 1.18, p=0.567 95% CI 0.66-2.11). The 5-yr OS probability was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.20 – 0.52) vs. 0.27 (95% CI: 0.09 – 0.49) for the conventional and micropapillary groups respectively (Supplemental Table 1a-b). Figure 1 depicts the Kaplan Meier curves for all survival outcomes. There were no survival differences between matched C-UTUC and MP-UTUC patients.

Table 5 -.

Clinical characteristics of cohorts

Variable Conventional (C-UTUC) Micropapillary (MP-UTUC) p-value
Total no. 36 18 -
Mean age (SD) 68.39 ( 10.78) 66.28 ( 8.30) 0.470
Pathologic stage 0.395
pTis 1 0
pT1 3 0
pT2 7 5
pT3 18 12
pT4 7 1
Grade >0.999
unknown 2 0
high 34 18
LVI 0.172
unknown 4 0
no 20 8
yes 12 10
Nodal status 0.461
Nx 5 4
N0 17 7
N1 9 2
N2 5 1
N3 0 4
Margins 0.319
negative 34 15
positive 2 3
NAC 0.845
no 21 11
yes 15 7

LVI – lymphovascular invasion

NAC – neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Figure 1 –

Figure 1 –

Figure 1 –

Overall survival, recurrence free survival, cancer specific survival of MP-UTUC and matched C-UTUC (n=18 and 35 respectively)

Discussion

We identified 19 cases of MP-UTUC at our center over a 23-year period from 416 UTUC patients, directly speaking to the low incidence of this disease. Patients with MP-UTUC had HG disease identified on biopsy, but were rarely diagnosed as having MP-UTUC histology preoperatively. Most had advanced pathologic disease, high rates of positive margins, positive lymph nodes, and rapid recurrence when present. Patients did not appear to respond to NAC, with no patient undergoing down staging to ≤ypT1 at the time of surgery. Advanced disease was noted, with more than two-thirds harboring ≥pT3 disease and more than one-third having positive lymph nodes on final pathology. AC was administered to six patients, all of whom but one died of MP-UTUC. Indeed, our findings are consistent with prior series. Both Holmang and Sung found that ≥80% of patients had at least pT3 disease at the time of resection in n=26 and n=7 patients, respectively. Similar to our series in which 61% of patients died of disease (DOD), 57% and 73% of patients in the Sung and Holmang series DOD, respectively. [8, 9].

Due to the rare nature of this variant histology in upper tract malignancy, the majority of series to date have pooled patients from multiple treatment centers [10, 11]. The largest of these studies retrospectively identified 39 patients nationwide. In that series, they did not report on the use of NAC. Survival from that series showed no difference in 5yr-CSS between C-UTUC and MP-UTUC, with median follow-up of 19 months [11].

Not surprisingly, the majority of patients in our study were male (83%). Prior studies have also reported that the majority of their MP patients were male in both bladder and upper tract disease [9, 12]. One potential, yet untested, hypothesis for the poor outcomes seen with this histology is that male patients harbor more aggressive biology that their female counterparts.

This report examines outcomes of patients who received NAC as part of their standard treatment for upper tract MP. NAC did not result in any pathologic down staging, however this finding could simply be due to small sample size as well as selection bias, whereby those with worse clinical findings, and doomed to respond poorly anyway, were recommended to undergo NAC. It is possible, though we think unlikely, that some MP-UTUC patients had a complete response with ypTO disease and thus were not identified. The role of NAC is gaining traction in UTUC. Many clinicians view it as integral to the treatment of UTUC, while others remain skeptical due to the lack of level one evidence. Current knowledge is based on retrospective studies, small prospective studies, and a recent phase II study [57]. The latter demonstrated pathologic complete response (ypTONO) of 14% in those receiving platinum-based NAC and a 60% rate of ≤ypT1N0 [5]. Intuitively, variant histology is considered as ‘high-risk’; however, data surrounding the effect of NAC in this group is lacking. In a recent study, Vetterlein et al. attempted to quantify the benefit of NAC in variant histology bladder cancer. Interestingly, they found no survival benefit with its use in MP histology despite increased pathologic downstaging [13]. In another study, Fernandez et al. found that NAC was not beneficial in all patients with MP bladder cancer, only in those with muscle-invasive disease and no evidence of hydronephrosis [12].

The role of AC in upper tract disease is shifting as well. Concerns exist regarding candidacy and tolerability following the loss of a renal unit. In our series, six patients received AC, all of whom did not receive NAC. Of these six patients, 4 DOD within two years, 1 died from disease 57 months following surgery, and the final patient finished chemotherapy recently with no evidence of disease 6 months later. A recent randomized study assessing the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in UTUC has reported preliminary results showing improved progression free survival in those receiving AC (HR 0.49, p=0.003) [4]. Although very intriguing, and applicable to patients who have adequate renal function postoperatively, these results cannot be directly applied to those with variant histology as they were excluded from the trial.

The utility of RPLND continues to be a topic of debate in the management of UTUC as well. Advocates cite resection of micro-metastatic disease and enhanced prognostic information as reasons for performing RPLND [14]. In our series, almost half of those with preoperative staging available for review were clinically node positive (5/12). One of fourteen (7%) patients who received RPLND had a retroperitoneal recurrence. This patient had a positive ureteral margin at the time of surgery and the extent of lymph node dissection is unknown as their surgery was performed at an outside institution. All other recurrences following RPLND (3 patients) occurred outside the retroperitoneum. It is unclear what role RPLND has on survival in this setting, but it would be fair to assume that it may reduce local recurrences as has been shown for C-UTUC [15].

Unlike bladder cancer, upper tract tumors are notoriously difficult to stage preoperatively and identification of variant histology is challenging. The small biopsies obtained during ureteroscopy make it difficult for pathologists to accurately assess presence/depth of invasion or comment on the presence of histologic variants. This was the case in our series as well. Only one patient was diagnosed with MP variant based on biopsy alone. As a result, treatment decisions regarding NAC are made using risk stratification based on clinical data [16].

Interestingly, when MP-UTUC patients were matched 1:2 to C-UTUC, no difference in survival was noted. A potential explanation for this is that by matching the C-UTUC to the advanced pathology observed in MP-UTUC, we selected for C-UTUC patients destined for poor prognosis, therefore making histology less of a prognostic factor. However, given the small numbers in the analysis the most likely explanation is that it is underpowered for the OS endpoint.

Limitations of our study include its retrospective design, which is subject to selection bias and lack of a control group. The small number of patients in this study limit the generalizability of its findings. Also, as a result of its retrospective design we were unable to gather all baseline data points on patients initially treated at outside institutions. We recognize that significant variability likely exists with regard to surgical technique as some patients received their extirpative surgery at outside institutions. Even within our own institution, surgical approaches vary between surgeons. Both of these factors add heterogeneity to the study; however reflect the real-world management of this disease. Pathologic re-review was a strength of this study however, our pathologists interpretations of OSI cases are limited by the sections they receive. Nonetheless, we believe this study serves as a depiction of upper tract MP-UTUC disease management and outcomes. With this pathologic variant being so rare, studies such as this provide some foundation for management decisions when confronted with this patient in the clinic.

Conclusions

MP-UTUC variant disease was aggressive, presented in advanced stages, recurred early, and with short survival. The benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in upper tract variant histology remains to be defined. In this small series, it did not appear to provide a benefit. The presence of MP-UTUC variant histology is often not recognized until final pathologic analysis, further evidence for the difficulty in identifying these tumors. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, identify genomic signatures, druggable targets, and evaluate other existing therapeutic options such as checkpoint blockade in this rare variant histology.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • MP-UTUC variant disease is aggressive and presents in advanced stages

  • The benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in upper tract variant histology remains to be defined

  • The presence of MP-UTUC variant histology is often not recognized until final pathologic analysis

Acknowledgements

This research was in part supported by the National Institutes of Health through MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant CA016672; the Eleanor and Scott Petty Fund for UTUC Research, and the Monteleone Family Foundation for Research in Kidney and Urothelial Carcinoma.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflicts of Interest: None

References

  • 1.Amin MB, et al. , Micropapillary variant of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Histologic pattern resembling ovarian papillary serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 1994. 18(12): p. 1224–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kamat AM, et al. , Micropapillary bladder cancer: a review of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience with 100 consecutive patients. Cancer, 2007. 110(1): p. 62–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guo CC, Tamboli P, and Czerniak B, Micropapillary variant of urothelial carcinoma in the upper urinary tract: a clinicopathologic study of 11 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2009. 133(1): p. 62–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alison Jane Birtle JDC, Robert Jones Jones, Mark Johnson, Michaela Hill, Richard T Bryan, James Catto, Jenny Donovan, Ann French, Chris Harris, Francis Keeley, Roger Kockelbergh, Thomas Powles, Rachel Todd, Lucy Tregellas, Caroline Wilson, Andrew Winterbottom, Rebecca Lewis, Emma Hall, Results of POUT: A phase III randomised trial of perioperative chemotherapy versus surveillance in upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). J Clin Oncol 2018. 36. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hoffman-Censits J, et al. , LBA26 PHASE II TRIAL OF NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY FOLLOWED BY EXTIRPATIVE SURGERY FOR PATIENTS WITH HIGH GRADE UPPER TRACT UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA (HG UTUC): RESULTS FROM ECOG-ACRIN 8141. The Journal of Urology, 2018. 199(4, Supplement): p. e1166–e1167. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Porten S, et al. , Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer, 2014. 120(12): p. 1794–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Siefker-Radtke AO, et al. , A phase 2 clinical trial of sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy with ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine followed by cisplatin, gemcitabine, and ifosfamide in locally advanced urothelial cancer: final results. Cancer, 2013. 119(3): p. 540–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Holmang S, Thomsen J, and Johansson SL, Micropapillary carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter. J Urol, 2006. 175(2): p. 463–6; discussion 466-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sung HH, et al. , Clinical significance of micropapillary urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Clin Pathol, 2014. 67(1): p. 49–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Perez-Montiel D, et al. , Micropapillary urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: Clinicopathologic study of five cases. Am J Clin Pathol, 2006. 126(1): p. 86–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Masson-Lecomte A, et al. , Impact of micropapillary histological variant on survival after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol, 2014. 32(2): p. 531–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fernandez MI, et al. , Clinical risk stratification in patients with surgically resectable micropapillary bladder cancer. BJU Int, 2017. 119(5): p. 684–691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vetterlein MW, et al. , Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant histology. Cancer, 2017. 123(22): p. 4346–4355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Roscigno M, et al. , Impact of lymph node dissection on cancer specific survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy. J Urol, 2009. 181(6): p. 2482–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kondo T, Takagi T, and Tanabe K, Therapeutic role of template-based lymphadenectomy in urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. World J Clin Oncol, 2015. 6(6): p. 237–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Margulis V, et al. , Preoperative multivariable prognostic model for prediction of nonorgan confined urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J Urol, 2010. 184(2): p. 453–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1

RESOURCES