TY - JOUR
T1 - Colorectal metastasis to the gallbladder mimicking a primary gallbladder malignancy
T2 - histopathological and molecular characteristics
AU - de Bitter, Tessa J J
AU - van der Linden, Ragna L A
AU - van Vliet, Shannon
AU - Weren, Fieke
AU - Sie, Daoud
AU - Ylstra, Bauke
AU - van der Linden, Hans C
AU - Knijn, Nikki
AU - Ligtenberg, Marjolijn J L
AU - van der Post, Rachel S
AU - Simmer, Femke
AU - Nagtegaal, Iris D
N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Aims: Outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment and survival have steadily improved during the past decades, accompanied by an increased risk of developing second primary tumours and metastatic tumours at unusual sites. Metastatic CRC can show mucosal colonisation, thereby mimicking a second primary tumour. This potential confusion could lead to incorrect diagnosis and consequently inadequate treatment of the patient. The aim of this study was to differentiate between metastatic CRC and a second primary (gallbladder cancer, GBC) using a combination of standard histopathology and molecular techniques. Methods and results: Ten consecutive patients with both CRC and GBC were identified in our region using the Dutch National Pathology Archive (PALGA). Two patients served as negative controls. Histology of GBC was reviewed by nine pathologists. A combination of immunohistochemistry, microsatellite analysis, genomewide DNA copy number analysis and targeted somatic mutation analysis was used to aid in differential diagnosis. In two patients, CRC and GBC were clonally related, as confirmed by somatic mutation analysis. For one case, this was confirmed by genomewide DNA copy number analysis. However, in both cases, pathologists initially considered the GBC as a second primary tumour. Conclusions: Metastatic CRC displaying mucosal colonisation is often misinterpreted as a second primary tumour. A combination of traditional histopathology and molecular techniques improves this interpretation, and lowers the risk of inadequate treatment.
AB - Aims: Outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment and survival have steadily improved during the past decades, accompanied by an increased risk of developing second primary tumours and metastatic tumours at unusual sites. Metastatic CRC can show mucosal colonisation, thereby mimicking a second primary tumour. This potential confusion could lead to incorrect diagnosis and consequently inadequate treatment of the patient. The aim of this study was to differentiate between metastatic CRC and a second primary (gallbladder cancer, GBC) using a combination of standard histopathology and molecular techniques. Methods and results: Ten consecutive patients with both CRC and GBC were identified in our region using the Dutch National Pathology Archive (PALGA). Two patients served as negative controls. Histology of GBC was reviewed by nine pathologists. A combination of immunohistochemistry, microsatellite analysis, genomewide DNA copy number analysis and targeted somatic mutation analysis was used to aid in differential diagnosis. In two patients, CRC and GBC were clonally related, as confirmed by somatic mutation analysis. For one case, this was confirmed by genomewide DNA copy number analysis. However, in both cases, pathologists initially considered the GBC as a second primary tumour. Conclusions: Metastatic CRC displaying mucosal colonisation is often misinterpreted as a second primary tumour. A combination of traditional histopathology and molecular techniques improves this interpretation, and lowers the risk of inadequate treatment.
KW - clonality
KW - colorectal cancer
KW - gallbladder cancer
KW - metastasis
KW - next-generation sequencing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070896989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13892
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13892
M3 - Article
C2 - 31044440
SN - 0309-0167
VL - 75
SP - 394
EP - 404
JO - Histopathology
JF - Histopathology
IS - 3
ER -