An unusual case of malignant biliary tract obstruction

Abstract

Malignant biliary tract obstruction (MBTO) is most commonly associated with primary hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies. Here, we present a rare case of a 65-year- old female who developed obstructive jaundice, which initially raised suspicion for hepatobiliary carcinoma. Cross-sectional imaging, including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, revealed hepatic lesions, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography demonstrated a malignant biliary stricture. Histopathological analysis of a liver biopsy unexpectedly confirmed metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Further evaluation with cystoscopy, prompted despite the absence of urinary symptoms, identified a small bladder mass, which was biopsy- proven as the primary UC. UC typically metastasizes to lymph nodes, lungs, or bones, and isolated liver involvement causing MBTO is exceptionally uncommon. This case underscores the importance of maintaining a broad differential diagnosis in patients with malignant biliary obstruction, as atypical metastatic patterns can mimic more common hepatobiliary cancers and delay appropriate management.

Keywords

Malignant biliary tract obstruction / Cholangiocarcinoma / Urothelial carcinoma / Hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer / Bladder cancer

References

[1] Lorenz JM.Management of malignant biliary obstruction. Semin Interv Radiol. 2016; 33(4):259-267. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1592330

[2] Bianchi M, Roghmann F, Becker A, et al. Age- stratified distribution of metastatic sites in bladder cancer: A population-based analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014; 8(3-4):E148-E158. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.787

[3] Paik WH, Park DH. Endoscopic management of malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2024; 34(1):127-140. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2023.07.004

[4] Suthar M, Purohit S, Bhargav V, Goyal P. Role of MRCP in differentiation of benign and malignant causes of biliary obstruction. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9(11):TC08-TC12. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14174.6771

[5] Canto MI, Hruban RH, Fishman EK, et al. Frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142(4):796-804; quiz e14-e15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.056

[6] Ronot M, Vilgrain V. Imaging of benign and malignant hepatocellular lesions. Semin Liver Dis. 2008; 28(3):267-282. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1085093

[7] Namasivayam S, Martin DR, Saini S.Imaging of liver metastases: MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2007; 7(1):2-9. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0002

[8] Larsen LP. Role of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in the assessment of hepatic metastases: A review. World J Hepatol. 2010; 2(1):8-15. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v2.i1.8

[9] Albiin N.MRI of focal liver lesions. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2012; 8(2):107-116. doi: 10.2174/157340512800672216

[10] Burnett AS, Calvert TJ, Chokshi RJ. Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography standard cytology: 10-year review of the literature. J Surg Res. 2013; 184(1):304-311. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.03.056

[11] McDaniel AS, Chinnaiyan AM, Siddiqui J, McKenney JK, Mehra R.Immunohistochemical staining characteristics of nephrogenic adenoma using the PIN-4 cocktail (p63, AMACR, and CK903) and GATA-3. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(12):1664-1671. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000267

[12] Hoang LL, Tacha D, Bremer RE, Haas TS, Cheng L. Uroplakin II UPII, GATA3, and p40 are highly sensitive markers for the differential diagnosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015; 23(10):711-716. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000143

[13] Takahara T, Murase Y, Tsuzuki T. Urothelial carcinoma: Variant histology, molecular subtyping, and immunophenotyping significant for treatment outcomes. Pathology. 2021; 53(1):56-66. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2020.09.004

[14] Reuter VE.The pathology of bladder cancer. Urology. 2006; 67(3Suppl 1):11-17;discussion 17-18. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.037