Viktor Soukup1, Otakar Čapoun2, Daniel Cohen3, Virginia Hernández4, Marek Babjuk5, Max Burger6, Eva Compérat7, Paolo Gontero8, Thomas Lam9, Steven MacLennan10, A Hugh Mostafid11, Joan Palou12, Bas W G van Rhijn13, Morgan Rouprêt14, Shahrokh F Shariat15, Richard Sylvester16, Yuhong Yuan17, Richard Zigeuner18. 1. Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Praha, Praha, Czech Republic. Electronic address: viktor.soukup@seznam.cz. 2. Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Praha, Praha, Czech Republic. Electronic address: otakar.capoun@seznam.cz. 3. Department of Urology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. 5. Hospital Motol and Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Department of Urology, Prague, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Germany. 7. Department of Pathology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de l'Est-Parisien HUEP, Assistance Publique Faculty of Medicine Pierre et Marie Curie, Institut Universitaire de Cancerologie GRC5, University Paris 6, Paris, France. 8. Department of Surgical Sciences, Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 9. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal, 12 Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland. 10. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 11. Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. 12. Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 13. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Urology, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Faculty of Medicine Pierre et Marie Curie, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie GRC5, University Paris 6, Paris, France. 15. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 16. EAU Guidelines Office Board, European Association of Urology, The Netherlands. 17. Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 18. Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Tumour grade is an important prognostic indicator in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Histopathological classifications are limited by interobserver variability (reproducibility), which may have prognostic implications. European Association of Urology NMIBC guidelines suggest concurrent use of both 1973 and 2004/2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classifications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic performance and reproducibility of the 1973 and 2004/2016 WHO grading systems for NMIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was undertaken incorporating Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were critically appraised for risk of bias (QUIPS). For prognosis, the primary outcome was progression to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Secondary outcomes were disease recurrence, and overall and cancer-specific survival. For reproducibility, the primary outcome was interobserver variability between pathologists. Secondary outcome was intraobserver variability (repeatability) by the same pathologist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 3593 articles identified, 20 were included in the prognostic review; three were eligible for the reproducibility review. Increasing tumour grade in both classifications was associated with higher disease progression and recurrence rates. Progression rates in grade 1 patients were similar to those in low-grade patients; progression rates in grade 3 patients were higher than those in high-grade patients. Survival data were limited. Reproducibility of the 2004/2016 system was marginally better than that of the 1973 system. Two studies on repeatability showed conflicting results. Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current grading classifications in NMIBC are suboptimal. The 1973 system identifies more aggressive tumours. Intra- and interobserver variability was slightly less in the 2004/2016 classification. We could not confirm that the 2004/2016 classification outperforms the 1973 classification in prediction of recurrence and progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the utility of two different grading systems for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Both systems predict progression and recurrence, although pathologists vary in their reporting; suggestions for further improvements are made.
CONTEXT: Tumour grade is an important prognostic indicator in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Histopathological classifications are limited by interobserver variability (reproducibility), which may have prognostic implications. European Association of Urology NMIBC guidelines suggest concurrent use of both 1973 and 2004/2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classifications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic performance and reproducibility of the 1973 and 2004/2016 WHO grading systems for NMIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was undertaken incorporating Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were critically appraised for risk of bias (QUIPS). For prognosis, the primary outcome was progression to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Secondary outcomes were disease recurrence, and overall and cancer-specific survival. For reproducibility, the primary outcome was interobserver variability between pathologists. Secondary outcome was intraobserver variability (repeatability) by the same pathologist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 3593 articles identified, 20 were included in the prognostic review; three were eligible for the reproducibility review. Increasing tumour grade in both classifications was associated with higher disease progression and recurrence rates. Progression rates in grade 1 patients were similar to those in low-grade patients; progression rates in grade 3 patients were higher than those in high-grade patients. Survival data were limited. Reproducibility of the 2004/2016 system was marginally better than that of the 1973 system. Two studies on repeatability showed conflicting results. Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current grading classifications in NMIBC are suboptimal. The 1973 system identifies more aggressive tumours. Intra- and interobserver variability was slightly less in the 2004/2016 classification. We could not confirm that the 2004/2016 classification outperforms the 1973 classification in prediction of recurrence and progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the utility of two different grading systems for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Both systems predict progression and recurrence, although pathologists vary in their reporting; suggestions for further improvements are made.
Keywords:
1973 World Health Organization classification; 2004/2016 World Health Organization classification; Grade; Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer; Prognosis; Progression; Recurrence; Repeatability; Reproducibility
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
Authors: Giovanni Barchetti; Giuseppe Simone; Isabella Ceravolo; Vincenzo Salvo; Riccardo Campa; Francesco Del Giudice; Ettore De Berardinis; Dorelsa Buccilli; Carlo Catalano; Michele Gallucci; James W F Catto; Valeria Panebianco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Vebjørn Kvikstad; Ok Målfrid Mangrud; Einar Gudlaugsson; Ingvild Dalen; Hans Espeland; Jan P A Baak; Emiel A M Janssen Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Andrey A Rosenkranz; Tatiana A Slastnikova; Tatiana A Karmakova; Maria S Vorontsova; Natalia B Morozova; Vasiliy M Petriev; Alexey S Abrosimov; Yuri V Khramtsov; Tatiana N Lupanova; Alexey V Ulasov; Raisa I Yakubovskaya; Georgii P Georgiev; Alexander S Sobolev Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Valeria Panebianco; Yoshifumi Narumi; Ersan Altun; Bernard H Bochner; Jason A Efstathiou; Shaista Hafeez; Robert Huddart; Steve Kennish; Seth Lerner; Rodolfo Montironi; Valdair F Muglia; Georg Salomon; Stephen Thomas; Hebert Alberto Vargas; J Alfred Witjes; Mitsuru Takeuchi; Jelle Barentsz; James W F Catto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Martina Minoli; Mirjam Kiener; George N Thalmann; Marianna Kruithof-de Julio; Roland Seiler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 5.923