Literature DB >> 12629345

Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.

Marco G Bol1, Jan P Baak, Susanne Buhr-Wildhagen, Arnold-Jan Kruse, Kjell H Kjellevold, Emiel A Janssen, Oddvar Mestad, Per Øgreid.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 consecutive stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinomas routinely diagnosed by 15 pathologists (original diagnosis) were reviewed by 3 independent experienced pathologists using 1999 WHO criteria (diagnoses 1 to 3 and reviewer consensus diagnosis). Interreviewer disagreement cases were blindly reviewed again. Each remaining disagreement case was discussed in a multihead microscope session to attempt to solve remaining disagreements. In cases of continuing disagreement the majority diagnosis on stage and grade was considered the consensus diagnosis. Stage progression at followup was the dependent variable. Stage progression-free Kaplan-Meier survival curves and hazard ratios of each stage and grade diagnosis were calculated and prognostic variability was determined.
RESULTS: There was complete interobserver agreement on stage and grade among reviewers in 80% and 59% of cases, while it was 87.7% and 75.4%, respectively, after the second review. More than 1 grade difference occurred in 1.5% of cases (0% after the second review). The consensus and original diagnoses agreed on stage and grade in 68.5% and 62.3% of cases, respectively. Assignment of individual cases to 1 category of the 1999 WHO classification per reviewer varied considerably. The incidence of cases classified as stage T1 grade 3 by the reviewers was between 12.3% and 18.9% (average 14.1%). Consensus diagnosis grade had the strongest prognostic value (HR 68.8, range 8.9 to 528.0). Of the 63 original diagnoses of stage T1 tumors the consensus diagnosis down staged 35 (55.6%) to Ta and up staged 8 (12.7%) to T2-3. Progression was more common in the 20 consensus diagnosis stage T1 cases (5 or 25%) than in the 55 original diagnosis stage T1 cases (11 or 20%). Original diagnosis stage T1 tumors that were down staged by the consensus diagnosis showed less progression than consensus diagnosis confirmed stage T1 tumors (17% versus 25%). The prognostically worst subgroup (T1 grade 3) also showed considerable prognostic variation among reviewers (28% to 76% at 5 years of followup), in that the consensus diagnosis again had the highest prognostic significance (HR 3.5, range 1.2 to 10.2). At the end of the study all pathologists expressed that they were regularly uncertain about stage and grade assessment in an individual case in a considerable percent of all cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Observer prognostic variability in staging and grading is considerable with potentially strong implications for patients. Interobserver variation did not decrease using the new 1999 WHO grading classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12629345     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000055471.78783.ae

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  22 in total

1.  Stratification based on methylation of TBX2 and TBX3 into three molecular grades predicts progression in patients with pTa-bladder cancer.

Authors:  Willemien Beukers; Raju Kandimalla; Roy G Masius; Marcel Vermeij; Ries Kranse; Geert Jlh van Leenders; Ellen C Zwarthoff
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Ki-67 MIB1 labelling index and the prognosis of primary TaT1 urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Authors:  A Quintero; J Alvarez-Kindelan; R J Luque; R Gonzalez-Campora; M J Requena; R Montironi; A Lopez-Beltran
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  En bloc transurethral resection with 2-micron continuous-wave laser for primary non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Xu Chen; Jun Liao; Lingwu Chen; Shaopeng Qiu; Chengqiang Mo; Xiaopeng Mao; Yuanzhong Yang; Shiying Zhou; Junxing Chen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridisation: prognostic perspectives in superficial bladder cancer.

Authors:  C Mian; M Lodde; E Comploj; L Lusuardi; S Palermo; M Mian; K Maier; A Pycha
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  [Use of marker systems in the treatment of bladder cancer].

Authors:  M Burger; F Vom Dorp
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  A practical guide to bladder cancer pathology.

Authors:  Eva Compérat; Justine Varinot; Julien Moroch; Caroline Eymerit-Morin; Fadi Brimo
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  Expression profiling for bladder cancer: strategies to uncover prognostic factors.

Authors:  Georg Bartsch; Anirban P Mitra; Richard J Cote
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.512

8.  Three-gene signature predicts disease progression of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Pildu Jeong; Yun-Sok Ha; In-Chang Cho; Seok-Joong Yun; Eun Sang Yoo; Isaac Yi Kim; Yung Hyun Choi; Sung-Kwon Moon; Wun-Jae Kim
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  Growth pattern in superficial urothelial bladder carcinomas. Histological review and clinical relevance.

Authors:  José I López; Javier C Angulo
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Development of a multiplex quantitative PCR signature to predict progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Rou Wang; David S Morris; Scott A Tomlins; Robert J Lonigro; Alexander Tsodikov; Rohit Mehra; Thomas J Giordano; L Priya Kunju; Cheryl T Lee; Alon Z Weizer; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 12.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.