OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the distribution of bladder cancers in the general population, classified by World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) criteria. This study evaluated the classification and stage of bladder cancers as part of a population-based epidemiological study of bladder cancer in the Northeastern United States. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All New Hampshire residents with bladder cancer newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2000 were identified through the state cancer registry. All slides were reviewed by a single pathologist. Tumors were classified by two sets of standard criteria. RESULTS: The retrieval rate for cases was over 90%. Of 342 cases reviewed, 15 were excluded for technical reasons or because malignancy was not definitively diagnosed. According to WHO/ISUP criteria, 25.7% of tumors were papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential (PUNLMP), 34.3% low-grade papillary carcinomas, 22.6% high-grade papillary carcinomas, 10.1% non-papillary urothelial carcinomas and 5.5% carcinoma in situ. By WHO (1973) criteria, 52.5% of tumors were grade 1, 21.4% grade 2 and 26.1% grade 3. Two-thirds of all tumors were stage Ta, 20.8% stage T1 and 7.6% stage >or=T2. 100% of PUNLMPs were non-invasive, 6.3% of low-grade carcinomas were invasive and 64.9% of high-grade carcinomas were invasive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to clinic or hospital referral-based series, this study documents a higher percentage of non-invasive tumors and a lower percentage of muscle-invasive tumors. There was also a higher percentage of PUNLMP tumors and fewer high-grade papillary carcinomas than in other series. These results may more accurately reflect prevalence data for bladder cancer grade and stage, although geographic variability may exist.
OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the distribution of bladder cancers in the general population, classified by World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) criteria. This study evaluated the classification and stage of bladder cancers as part of a population-based epidemiological study of bladder cancer in the Northeastern United States. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All New Hampshire residents with bladder cancer newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2000 were identified through the state cancer registry. All slides were reviewed by a single pathologist. Tumors were classified by two sets of standard criteria. RESULTS: The retrieval rate for cases was over 90%. Of 342 cases reviewed, 15 were excluded for technical reasons or because malignancy was not definitively diagnosed. According to WHO/ISUP criteria, 25.7% of tumors were papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential (PUNLMP), 34.3% low-grade papillary carcinomas, 22.6% high-grade papillary carcinomas, 10.1% non-papillary urothelial carcinomas and 5.5% carcinoma in situ. By WHO (1973) criteria, 52.5% of tumors were grade 1, 21.4% grade 2 and 26.1% grade 3. Two-thirds of all tumors were stage Ta, 20.8% stage T1 and 7.6% stage >or=T2. 100% of PUNLMPs were non-invasive, 6.3% of low-grade carcinomas were invasive and 64.9% of high-grade carcinomas were invasive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to clinic or hospital referral-based series, this study documents a higher percentage of non-invasive tumors and a lower percentage of muscle-invasive tumors. There was also a higher percentage of PUNLMP tumors and fewer high-grade papillary carcinomas than in other series. These results may more accurately reflect prevalence data for bladder cancer grade and stage, although geographic variability may exist.
Authors: J W A Oosterhuis; R F M Schapers; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; R P E Pauwels; D W Newling; F ten Kate Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Alan R Schned; Petra Lenz; Lee E Moore; Alison Johnson; Michael Jones; Masatoshi Kida; Debra T Silverman; Molly Schwenn; Karl T Kelsey; Angeline S Andrew; Dalsu Baris; Margaret R Karagas Journal: ISRN Pathol Date: 2012
Authors: Venu Chalasani; Wassim Kassouf; Joseph L Chin; Yves Fradet; Armen G Aprikian; Adrian S Fairey; Eric Estey; Louis Lacombe; Ricardo Rendon; David Bell; Ilias Cagiannos; Darrell Drachenberg; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Jonathan I Izawa Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Aadel A Chaudhuri; Bruna Pellini; Nadja Pejovic; Pradeep S Chauhan; Peter K Harris; Jeffrey J Szymanski; Zachary L Smith; Vivek K Arora Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-07-15
Authors: Angeline S Andrew; Carmen J Marsit; Alan R Schned; John D Seigne; Karl T Kelsey; Jason H Moore; Laurent Perreard; Margaret R Karagas; Lorenzo F Sempere Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Eugene J Pietzak; Aditya Bagrodia; Eugene K Cha; Esther N Drill; Gopa Iyer; Sumit Isharwal; Irina Ostrovnaya; Priscilla Baez; Qiang Li; Michael F Berger; Ahmet Zehir; Nikolaus Schultz; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Dean F Bajorin; Guido Dalbagni; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; David B Solit; Bernard H Bochner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Reno C Leeming; Margaret R Karagas; Diane Gilbert-Diamond; Jennifer A Emond; Michael S Zens; Alan R Schned; John D Seigne; Michael N Passarelli Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Debra T Silverman; Nathaniel Rothman; Michael Dean; Stella Koutros; Nina Rao; Lee E Moore; Michael L Nickerson; Donghyuk Lee; Bin Zhu; Larissa A Pardo; Dalsu Baris; Molly Schwenn; Alison Johnson; Kristine Jones; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 13.801