Thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney (TLFC), a rare neoplasm with low malignant potential, is histologically similar to primary thyroid follicular carcinoma, but characteristically lacks thyroid immunohistochemical markers. We report a case of 34-year old patient with nephrolithiasis. Ultrasound revealed hepatorenal cysts consistent with adult type polycystic kidney disease (ATPKD) and a cytologically confirmed left kidney tumor. Nephrectomy specimen contained sharply demarcated lesion of unusual morphology. Tubular and cystic structures lined by mostly cuboidal cells and filled with amorphous eosinophillic material, reminiscent of follicular carcinoma of the thyroid gland, were diagnostic for TLFC. Thyroid markers were negative. To our knowledge this is the first report of TFLC associated to ATPKD. Brief review of previously published TFLCs, possible relationship between entities and differential diagnosis are discussed.

Light microscopic evaluation of cell morphology in preparations from urine or bladder washing containing exfoliated cells is a standard and primary method for the detection of bladder cancer and also malignancy from other parts of the urinary tract. The cytopathologic examination is a valuable method to detect an early recurrence of malignancy or new primary carcinoma during the follow-up of patients after the treatment of bladder cancer. Characteristic cellular and nuclear signs of malignancy indicate invasive or in situ urothelial carcinoma or high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. However, low sensitivity of the method reflects the unreliable cytopathologic diagnosis of low-grade urothelial neoplasms as cellular and nuclear signs of malignancy in these neoplasms are poorly manifested. Many different markers were developed to improve the diagnosis of bladder carcinoma on urinary samples. UroVysion™ test is among the newest and most promising tests. By the method of in situ hybridization one can detect specific cytogenetic changes of urothelial carcinoma.

The diagnosis is the art of determining the nature of a disease, and an accurate diagnosis is the true cornerstone on which rational treatment should be built. Within the workflow in the management of head and neck tumours, there are different types of diagnosis. The purpose of this work is to point out the differences and the aims of the different types of diagnoses and to highlight their importance in the management of patients with head and neck tumours. Qualitative diagnosis is performed by a pathologist and is essential in determining the management and can provide guidance on prognosis. The evolution of immunohistochemistry and molecular biology techniques has made it possible to obtain more precise diagnoses and to identify prognostic markers and precision factors. Quantitative diagnosis is made by the radiologist and consists of identifying a mass lesion and the estimation of the tumour volume and extent using imaging techniques, such as CT, MRI, and PET. The distinction between the two types of diagnosis is clear, as the methodology is different. The accurate establishment of both diagnoses plays an essential role in treatment planning. Getting the right diagnosis is a key aspect of health care, and it provides an explanation of a patient’s health problem and informs subsequent decision. Deep learning and radiomics approaches hold promise for improving diagnosis.