Background: Small cell carcinoma (SMCC) is rarely diagnosed in urine specimens. Cytologically, this tumor is similar to pulmonary SMCC. However, clinicopathologic correlation may be required to differentiate between primary urinary bladder SMCC and metastatic SMCC from a remote primary or secondary bladder involvement by direct extension of the tumor from nearby organs (prostate, uterus, or ovary). A unique case of a rare pulmonary-type ovarian SMCC, the tumor cells of which were detected in a voided urine specimen, is described herein. Case: A 79-year-old female presented to the urologic clinic with a history of metastatic SMCC of unknown primary with hematuria. The voided urine specimen examination revealed tumor cells cytomorphologically consistent with small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Following cytologic diagnosis, cystoscopic examination and bladder biopsy were performed. The histopathology revealed a widely invasive tumor with a morphology typical of SMCC. The overlying urothelium was unremarkable. By immunohistochemistry, tumor cells were found positive for neuroendocrine markers, EMA and WT-1. The morphologic and immunohistochemical features of the tumor were most consistent with urinary bladder involvement by pulmonary-type primary ovarian SMCC. Conclusion: It is justified to think that SMCC cell detection in urine specimens does not necessarily imply their origin from primary bladder malignancy. Performing additional studies may be prudent in order to exclude secondary involvement of the bladder in this tumor as the correct diagnosis has significant clinical implications.

Keywords:
Small cell carcinoma, Ovary, Urine specimen
1.
Ali SZ, Reuter VE, Zakowski MF: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the urinary bladder. A clinicopathologic study with emphasis on cytologic features. Cancer 1997;79:356–361.
2.
McRae S, Garcia BM: Cytologic diagnosis of a primary pure oat cell carcinoma of the bladder in voided urine: a case report. Acta Cytol 1997;41(4 suppl):1279–1283.
3.
Yamaguchi T, Imamura Y, Shimamoto T, Kawada T, Nakayama K, Tokunaga S, Yasu- da M: Small cell carcinoma of the bladder: two cases diagnosed by urine cytology. Acta Cytol 2000;44:403–409.
4.
Acs G, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW: Cytomorphology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:92–96.
5.
Takada S, Yoshikawa M, Hosokawa Y, Hayashi Y, Fujimoto K, Hirao Y: Small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder detected by urinary cytology: a case report. Hinyokika Kiyo 2010;56:173–175.
6.
Grignon DJ, Ro JY, Ayala AG, Shum DT, Ordóñez NG, Logothetis CJ, Johnson DE, Mackay B: Small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a clinicopathologic analysis of 22 cases. Cancer 1992;69:527–536.
7.
Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE: Bladder Biopsy Interpretation. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004, pp 126–128.
8.
Choong NW, Quevedo JF, Kaur JS: Small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: the Mayo Clinic experience. Cancer 2005;103:1172–1178.
9.
Ismaili N, Heudel PE, Elkarak F, Kaikani W, Bajard A, Ismaili M, Errihani H, Droz JP, Flechon A: Outcome of recurrent and metastatic small cell carcinoma of the bladder. BMJ Urol 2009;9:4.
10.
Qiunn AM, Flanigan R, Sienko A, Wojcik EM: Cytologic features of recurrent lymphoma involving the urinary bladder. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:185–188.
11.
Jukunaga M, Endo Y, Miyazawa Y, Ushigome S: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the ovary. Virchows Arch 1997;430:343–348.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.