Prognostic value and reproducibility of different microscopic characteristics in the WHO grading systems for pTa and pT1 urinary bladder urothelial carcinomas

被引:10
作者
Kvikstad, Vebjorn [1 ,2 ]
Mangrud, Ok Malfrid [3 ]
Gudlaugsson, Einar [1 ]
Dalen, Ingvild [4 ]
Espeland, Hans [5 ]
Baak, Jan P. A. [1 ,6 ,7 ]
Janssen, Emiel A. M. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Stavanger, Norway
[2] Univ Stavanger, Dept Math & Nat Sci, Stavanger, Norway
[3] Innlandet Hosp, Dept Pathol, Lillehammer, Norway
[4] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Res, Stavanger, Norway
[5] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Stavanger, Norway
[6] Med Practice Dr Med Jan Baak AS, Tananger, Norway
[7] Tech Univ Munich, Fac Sports & Hlth Sci, Dept TCM, Munich, Germany
关键词
Papillary urothelial carcinoma; Grading; Reproducibility; Prognosis; WORLD-HEALTH-ORGANIZATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; STAGES TA; CANCER; CLASSIFICATION; PROGRESSION; GUIDELINES; NEOPLASMS; INDEX;
D O I
10.1186/s13000-019-0868-3
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Background European treatment guidelines for pTa and pT1 urinary bladder urothelial carcinoma depend highly on stage and WHO-grade. Both the WHO73 and the WHO04 grading systems show some intra- and interobserver variability. The current pilot study investigates which histopathological features are especially sensitive for this undesired lack of reproducibility and the influence on prognostic value. Methods Thirty-eight cases of primary non-muscle invasive urothelial carcinomas, including thirteen cases with stage progression, were reviewed by three pathologists. Thirteen microscopic features were extracted from pathology textbooks and evaluated separately. Reproducibility was measured using Gwet's agreement coefficients. Prognostic ability regarding progression was estimated by the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) function. Results The best reproducible features (Gwet's agreement coefficient above 0.60) were papillary architecture, nuclear polarity, cellular maturation, nuclear enlargement and giant nuclei. Nucleoli was the strongest prognostic feature, and the only feature with an AUC above 0.70 for both grading systems, but reproducibility was not among the strongest. Nuclear polarity also had prognostic value with an AUC of 0.70 and 0.67 for the WHO73 and WHO04, respectively. The other features did not have significant prognostic value. Conclusions The reproducibility of the histopathological features of the different WHO grading systems varied considerably. Of all the features evaluated, only nuclear polarity was both prognostic and significantly reproducible. Further validation studies are needed on these features to improve grading of urothelial carcinomas.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2017, CANC NORWAY 2016 CAN
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2014, HDB INTERRATER RELIA
  • [3] Bladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Global Overview and Recent Trends
    Antoni, Sebastien
    Ferlay, Jacques
    Soerjomataram, Isabelle
    Znaor, Ariana
    Jemal, Ahmedin
    Bray, Freddie
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (01) : 96 - 108
  • [4] EAU Guidelines on Non-Muscle-invasive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: Update 2016
    Babjuk, Marko
    Boehle, Andreas
    Burger, Maximilian
    Capoun, Otakar
    Cohen, Daniel
    Comperat, Eva M.
    Hernandez, Virginia
    Kaasinen, Eero
    Palou, Joan
    Roupret, Morgan
    van Rhijn, Bas W. G.
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Soukup, Viktor
    Sylvester, Richard J.
    Zigeuner, Richard
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (03) : 447 - 461
  • [5] Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder
    Bol, MGW
    Baak, JPA
    Buhr-Wildhagen, S
    Kruse, AJ
    Kjellevold, KH
    Janssen, EAM
    Mestad, O
    Ogreid, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 169 (04) : 1291 - 1294
  • [6] Prognostic value of proliferative activity and nuclear morphometry for progression in TaT1 urothelial cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder
    Bol, MGW
    Baak, JPA
    Rep, S
    Marx, WL
    Kruse, AJ
    Bos, SD
    Kisman, O
    Voorhorst, FJ
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2002, 60 (06) : 1124 - 1130
  • [7] Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy
    Chan, TY
    Partin, AW
    Walsh, PC
    Epstein, JI
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2000, 56 (05) : 823 - 827
  • [8] Cheng L, 2014, UROLOGICAL SURG PATH, P230
  • [9] Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists
    Egevad, Lars
    Ahmad, Amar S.
    Algaba, Ferran
    Berney, Daniel M.
    Boccon-Gibod, Liliane
    Comperat, Eva
    Evans, Andrew J.
    Griffiths, David
    Grobholz, Rainer
    Kristiansen, Glen
    Langner, Cord
    Lopez-Beltran, Antonio
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Moss, Sue
    Oliveira, Pedro
    Vainer, Ben
    Varma, Murali
    Camparo, Philippe
    [J]. HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2013, 62 (02) : 247 - 256
  • [10] Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens
    Epstein, JI
    Amin, M
    Boccon-Gibod, L
    Egevad, L
    Humphrey, PA
    Mikuz, G
    Newling, D
    Nilsson, S
    Sakr, W
    Srigley, JR
    Wheeler, TM
    Montironi, R
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2005, 39 : 34 - 63