medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Urología

Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2011, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2011; 71 (3)

Bladder paraganglioma

Díaz-Núñez JR, Hernández-Martinez G, Rodríguez-Montes CE, Flores-Terrazas EJ, Castro-Marín M, López-Silvestre JC, Campos-Salcedo JG, Zapata-Villalba MA, Mendoza-Alvarez LA, Estrada-Carrasco CE
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 172-175
PDF size: 374.56 Kb.


Key words:

Paraganglioma, pheochromocytoma, bladder tumor, Mexico.

ABSTRACT

Background: Paraganglioma represents less than 0.05% of bladder cancer that is non-dependent on the urothelium. Germ line mutations in B, C, and D subunit- coding genes of the succinate dehydrogenase mitochondrial Complex II are associated with multiple paragangliomas. When bladder paraganglioma is suspected, cystoscopy should be carried out after previous adrenergic block. Biopsy is not recommended in tumors because they are hypervascularized and generally covered with normal urothelium. Treatment for localized tumor is transurethral resection. Partial cystectomy is recommended when tumors are large or there has been lymph node extension.
Case presentation: Patient is a 66-year-old woman whose disease began in July 2008 with three events of macroscopic hematuria. Cystoscopy identified pinkish, smooth-edged pedunculated tumor with wide base and approximately 5 cm of abundant retrotrigonal vascularization. Bladder tumor was resected and histopathological study reported paraganglioma invading the muscularis propria of the bladder.
Discussion: Bladder paraganglioma belongs to nonurothelial bladder tumors and the classic triad of clinical symptoms is silent macroscopic hematuria (present in 60% of reported cases), paroxysmal hypertension, and “urinary attacks”. Patient progress was good after surgical treatment and up to the present there have been no malignancy indicators. However, due to the fact that treatment was conservative the patient is now under 6-month surveillance.


REFERENCES

  1. Pacak K, Linehan WM, Eisenhofer G, et al. Recent advances in genetics, diagnosis, localization, and treatment of pheochromocytoma. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:315-29.

  2. Pawlu C, Bausch B, Reisch N, Neumann HP. Genetic testing for pheochromocytoma-associated syndromes. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2005;66:178-85.

  3. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Favier J, Rustin P, et al. Mutations in the SDHB gene are associated with extra-adrenal and/or malignant phaeochromocytomas. Cancer Res 2003;63:5615-21.

  4. Niemann S, Muller, U. Mutations in SDHC cause autosomal dominant paraganglioma, type 3. Nat Genet 2000;26:268. Lee, SC, Chionh, SB, Chong, SM, Taschner, PE. Hereditary Paraganglioma Due to the SDHD M1I Mutation in a Second Chinese Family: A Founder Effect? Nat Genet 2000;26:268-70.

  5. Plouin PF, Chatellier G, Fofol I, Corvol P. Tumor recurrence and hypertension persistence after successful pheochromocytoma operation. Hypertension 1997;29:1133-9.

  6. Neumann HP, Berger DP, Sigmund G, et al. Pheochromocytomas, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, and von Hippel-Lindau disease. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1531-8.

  7. Benn DE, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Reilly JR, et al. Clinical presentation and penetrance of Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma syndromes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:827-36.

  8. Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M, et al. Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA 2004;292:943-51.

  9. Bostwick DG. Paraganglioma of the Urinary Bladder Can Biologic Potential Be Predicted? Cancer 2000;88:844-52.

  10. JWM Lenders, K Pacak. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best? JAMA 2002;287:1427–1434.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Urol. 2011;71