Literature DB >> 19346063

Prognostic accuracy of individual uropathologists in noninvasive urinary bladder carcinoma: a multicentre study comparing the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation classifications.

Matthias May1, Sabine Brookman-Amissah, Jan Roigas, Arndt Hartmann, Stephan Störkel, Glen Kristiansen, Christian Gilfrich, Roman Borchardt, Bernd Hoschke, Olaf Kaufmann, Sven Gunia.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Grading of noninvasive papillary urinary bladder carcinoma (PUC) is routinely performed in clinical oncologic practice; however, reports regarding diagnostic and prognostic accuracy are contradictory.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation (WHO) classifications in terms of interobserver variability and prognostic implications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred PUC were retrospectively reviewed by four independent expert genitourinary pathologists blinded with respect to patient identity and clinical outcome. Tumour grading was assigned according to the 1973 and 2004 WHO classifications. Surveying a mean postsurgical follow-up of 71.8 mo (range: 18-163 mo), clinical outcome in terms of recurrence-free and progression-free survival was recorded for all patients. INTERVENTION: All of the patients underwent transurethral resection of the bladder. MEASUREMENTS: The generalised κ (kappa statistic) for interobserver variability was calculated, and Kaplan-Meier analysis as well as univariate regression analysis were performed to evaluate prognostic implications in terms of recurrence and progression rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During the follow-up, a total of 84 (42%) patients experienced recurrence, whereas another 18 (9%) patients featured disease progression. Owing to the rare presence of papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) in our cohort (0-3.5%), the 2004 WHO classification approached a two-tier system (low and high grade), which showed less interobserver variability than the 1973 classification (κ: 0.30-0.52 vs 0-0.37, respectively). In comparing the power of both classifications to separate indolent from aggressive PUC, striking pathologist-dependent differences became apparent.
CONCLUSIONS: Both WHO classifications for grading of PUC suffer from substantial interobserver variability, with the 2004 WHO classification showing less interobserver variability. Stark differences in the prognostic power of the individual grading approaches were also found. These significant differences in the individual interpretation of the WHO grading schemes for noninvasive PUC highlight the necessity of better-defined criteria for conventional tumour grading; otherwise, the subdivision into prognostically different groups by conventional histomorphology might remain of limited value.
Copyright © 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19346063     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  36 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

Review 2.  [Urothelial carcinoma].

Authors:  H Rübben; F Vom Dorp
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Defining and treating the spectrum of intermediate risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Ashish M Kamat; J Alfred Witjes; Maurizio Brausi; Mark Soloway; Donald Lamm; Raj Persad; Roger Buckley; Andreas Böhle; Marc Colombel; Joan Palou
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Impact of 2004 ISUP/WHO classification on bladder cancer grading.

Authors:  Soum D Lokeshwar; Roberto Ruiz-Cordero; Marie C Hupe; Merce Jorda; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  [Urine cytology - update 2013. A systematic review of recent literature].

Authors:  M Böhm; F vom Dorp; M Schostak; O W Hakenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  SIU-ICUD on bladder cancer: pathology.

Authors:  Eva Compérat; Marek Babjuk; Ferran Algaba; Mahul Amin; Fadi Brimo; David Grignon; Donna Hansel; Ondra Hes; Bernard Malavaud; Victor Reuter; Theo van der Kwast
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  [Aftercare of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer].

Authors:  G B Schulz; B Schlenker; C G Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Histologic grading of urothelial papillary neoplasms: impact of combined grading (two-numbered grading system) on reproducibility.

Authors:  Burçin Tuna; Kutsal Yörükoglu; Ender Düzcan; Sait Sen; Nalan Nese; Banu Sarsık; Aysegul Akder; Sehnaz Sayhan; Uğur Mungan; Ziya Kirkali
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  [Quality of care in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer: a prospective assessment in northern Germany].

Authors:  C Reek; M Rink; M Bloch; J Hansen; F K Chun; A Schneider; J Busche; M Fisch
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Interobserver agreement of confocal laser endomicroscopy for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Timothy C Chang; Jen-Jane Liu; Shelly T Hsiao; Ying Pan; Kathleen E Mach; John T Leppert; Jesse K McKenney; Robert V Rouse; Joseph C Liao
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.