International Opinions on Grading of Urothelial Carcinoma: A Survey Among European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology Members.
Bladder
Cancer
European Association of Urology
Grading
International Society of Urological Pathology
Survey
WHO1973
WHO2004
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
accepted:
29
03
2023
medline:
7
6
2023
pubmed:
7
6
2023
entrez:
7
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Grade of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is an important prognostic factor for progression. Currently, two World Health Organization (WHO) classification systems (WHO1973, categories: grade 1-3, and WHO2004 categories: papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential [PUNLMP], low-grade [LG], high-grade [HG] carcinoma) are used. To ask the European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) members regarding their current practice and preferences of grading systems. A web-based, anonymous questionnaire with ten questions on grading of NMIBC was created. The members of EAU and ISUP were invited to complete an online survey by the end of 2021. Thirteen experts had previously answered the same questions. The submitted answers from 214 ISUP members, 191 EAU members, and 13 experts were analyzed. Currently, 53% use only the WHO2004 system and 40% use both systems. According to most respondents, PUNLMP is a rare diagnosis with management similar to Ta-LG carcinoma. The majority (72%) would consider reverting back to WHO1973 if grading criteria were more detailed. Separate reporting of WHO1973-G3 within WHO2004-HG would influence clinical decisions for Ta and/or T1 tumors according the majority (55%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier (41%) or a three-tier (41%) grading system. The current WHO2004 grading system is supported by a minority (20%), whereas nearly half (48%) supported a hybrid three- or four-tier grading system composed of both WHO1973 and WHO2004. The survey results of the experts were comparable with ISUP and EAU respondents. Both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 grading system are still widely used. Even though opinions on the future of bladder cancer grading were strongly divided, there was limited support for WHO1973 and WHO2004 in their current formats, while the hybrid (three-tier) grading system with LG, HG-G2, and HG-G3 as categories could be considered the most promising alternative. Grading of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a matter of ongoing debate and lacks international consensus. We surveyed urologists and pathologists of European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology on their preferences regarding NMIBC grading to generate a multidisciplinary dialogue. Both the "old" World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 and the "new" WHO2004 grading schemes are still used widely. However, continuation of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 system showed limited support, while a hybrid grading system composed of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 classification system may be considered a promising alternative.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Grade of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is an important prognostic factor for progression. Currently, two World Health Organization (WHO) classification systems (WHO1973, categories: grade 1-3, and WHO2004 categories: papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential [PUNLMP], low-grade [LG], high-grade [HG] carcinoma) are used.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To ask the European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) members regarding their current practice and preferences of grading systems.
Design setting and participants
UNASSIGNED
A web-based, anonymous questionnaire with ten questions on grading of NMIBC was created. The members of EAU and ISUP were invited to complete an online survey by the end of 2021. Thirteen experts had previously answered the same questions.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
UNASSIGNED
The submitted answers from 214 ISUP members, 191 EAU members, and 13 experts were analyzed.
Results and limitations
UNASSIGNED
Currently, 53% use only the WHO2004 system and 40% use both systems. According to most respondents, PUNLMP is a rare diagnosis with management similar to Ta-LG carcinoma. The majority (72%) would consider reverting back to WHO1973 if grading criteria were more detailed. Separate reporting of WHO1973-G3 within WHO2004-HG would influence clinical decisions for Ta and/or T1 tumors according the majority (55%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier (41%) or a three-tier (41%) grading system. The current WHO2004 grading system is supported by a minority (20%), whereas nearly half (48%) supported a hybrid three- or four-tier grading system composed of both WHO1973 and WHO2004. The survey results of the experts were comparable with ISUP and EAU respondents.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 grading system are still widely used. Even though opinions on the future of bladder cancer grading were strongly divided, there was limited support for WHO1973 and WHO2004 in their current formats, while the hybrid (three-tier) grading system with LG, HG-G2, and HG-G3 as categories could be considered the most promising alternative.
Patient summary
UNASSIGNED
Grading of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a matter of ongoing debate and lacks international consensus. We surveyed urologists and pathologists of European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology on their preferences regarding NMIBC grading to generate a multidisciplinary dialogue. Both the "old" World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 and the "new" WHO2004 grading schemes are still used widely. However, continuation of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 system showed limited support, while a hybrid grading system composed of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 classification system may be considered a promising alternative.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37284047
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.019
pii: S2666-1683(23)00189-1
pmc: PMC10240524
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
154-165Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Références
Am J Surg Pathol. 1998 Dec;22(12):1435-48
pubmed: 9850170
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1021-9
pubmed: 27317986
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Apr;4(2):182-191
pubmed: 33423944
Eur Urol. 2022 Jan;81(1):75-94
pubmed: 34511303
J Urol. 2002 Nov;168(5):1964-70
pubmed: 12394686
Eur Urol. 2021 Apr;79(4):480-488
pubmed: 33419683
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119
pubmed: 26996659
Urol Oncol. 2020 May;38(5):440-448
pubmed: 31704141
Scand J Urol. 2022 Feb;56(1):14-18
pubmed: 34623216
Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):801-813
pubmed: 28457661
Virchows Arch. 2002 Aug;441(2):109-16
pubmed: 12189499
Eur Urol. 2022 Nov;82(5):469-482
pubmed: 35965208
Virchows Arch. 2002 Aug;441(2):105-8
pubmed: 12189498
Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Mar;8(2):438-446
pubmed: 33771477
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Oct;16(5):e985-e992
pubmed: 29884516
Pathology. 2022 Jun;54(4):425-433
pubmed: 35074179