Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 725   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size

Table of Contents
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 196  

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors of the bladder

Vice-chairman and Consultant Urologist, Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat, India

Date of Web Publication18-Oct-2012

Correspondence Address:
Arvind P Ganpule
Vice-Chairman, Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.102681

PMID: 23248533

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ganpule AP. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors of the bladder. Urol Ann 2012;4:196

How to cite this URL:
Ganpule AP. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors of the bladder. Urol Ann [serial online] 2012 [cited 2021 Sep 23];4:196. Available from: https://www.urologyannals.com/text.asp?2012/4/3/196/102681


I read with great interest the article by Yagnik et al. [1] regarding inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) of the bladder. The authors have succinctly described the pathology with relevant pictures. I congratulate the authors for the write up. The article however fails to provide details pertinent to this entity in general and the case in specific. After review of current literature, [2],[3] I would like to raise a few questions and make a few points

First, the authors in the article describe an "irregular heterogeneously enhancing polypoidal bladder base lesion infiltrating bilateral seminal vesicle" on CT imaging; however, no pictures are provided. A contrast-enhanced CT scan picture would have given a wealth of information to the readers. The readers would have become wise if further information was provided on lymph nodes, given the fact that the mass had suspicion of involvement of the seminal vesicles and the prostate.

Second, the authors describe having taken "multiple biopsies" from the tumor. They do not mention if the biopsy included the muscle. Did the authors completely resect the tumor? The article does not throw any light on this fact.

Third, as it is famously said" the proof of the pudding is in eating it". The authors state in the article that these tumors tend to reccur. I would be more worried, if the tumor reccurs, particularly so if the tumor was not completely resected at the first instance. A postoperative imaging study of the patient in the form of either an ultrasound or CT imaging would have educated the readers.

Last but not the least, the authors describe a well-described rare entity, [2],[3] but it would have gone a long way for the readers, if the authors had addressed the dilemmas with imaging, core issue of recurrence and the importance of follow-up in IMTs.

   References Top

1.Yagnik V, Chaddha A, Chaudhari S, Patel K. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour of the urinary bladder. Urol Ann 2010;2:78-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Pettinano G, Manivel JC, De Rosa N, Dehner LP. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour (plasma cell granuloma). Clinicopathologic study of 20 cases with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural observations. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;94:538-46.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Coffin CM, Watterson J, Priest JR, Dehner LP. Extrapulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (inflammatory pseudotumor). A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 84 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19:859-74.  Back to cited text no. 3


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded251    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal