» Articles » PMID: 31412916

Prognostic Value and Reproducibility of Different Microscopic Characteristics in the WHO Grading Systems for PTa and PT1 Urinary Bladder Urothelial Carcinomas

Overview
Journal Diagn Pathol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Pathology
Date 2019 Aug 16
PMID 31412916
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

NMGrad: Advancing Histopathological Bladder Cancer Grading with Weakly Supervised Deep Learning.

Fuster S, Kiraz U, Eftestol T, Janssen E, Engan K Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(9).

PMID: 39329651 PMC: 11428615. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11090909.


Proliferation and immunohistochemistry for p53, CD25 and CK20 in predicting prognosis of non-muscle invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas.

Kvikstad V, Lillesand M, Gudlaugsson E, Mangrud O, Rewcastle E, Skaland I PLoS One. 2024; 19(1):e0297141.

PMID: 38277354 PMC: 10817121. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297141.


Artificial Intelligence in Digital Pathology for Bladder Cancer: Hype or Hope? A Systematic Review.

Khoraminia F, Fuster S, Kanwal N, Olislagers M, Engan K, van Leenders G Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(18).

PMID: 37760487 PMC: 10526515. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184518.


An update on computational pathology tools for genitourinary pathology practice: A review paper from the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS).

Parwani A, Patel A, Zhou M, Cheville J, Tizhoosh H, Humphrey P J Pathol Inform. 2023; 14:100177.

PMID: 36654741 PMC: 9841212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100177.


Multiparametric Classification of Non-Muscle Invasive Papillary Urothelial Neoplasms: Combining Morphological, Phenotypical, and Molecular Features for Improved Risk Stratification.

Montes-Mojarro I, Hassas S, Staehle S, Sander P, Harland N, Serna-Higuita L Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(15).

PMID: 35897708 PMC: 9330009. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158133.


References
1.
Liukkonen T, Rajala P, Raitanen M, Rintala E, Kaasinen E, Lipponen P . Prognostic value of MIB-1 score, p53, EGFr, mitotic index and papillary status in primary superficial (Stage pTa/T1) bladder cancer: a prospective comparative study. The Finnbladder Group. Eur Urol. 1999; 36(5):393-400. DOI: 10.1159/000020039. View

2.
Chan T, Partin A, Walsh P, Epstein J . Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 56(5):823-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00753-6. View

3.
Bol M, Baak J, Rep S, Marx W, Kruse A, Bos S . Prognostic value of proliferative activity and nuclear morphometry for progression in TaT1 urothelial cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder. Urology. 2002; 60(6):1124-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01906-4. View

4.
Bol M, Baak J, Buhr-Wildhagen S, Kruse A, Kjellevold K, Janssen E . Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol. 2003; 169(4):1291-4. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000055471.78783.ae. View

5.
Larsson P, Wijkstrom H, Thorstenson A, Adolfsson J, Norming U, Wiklund P . A population-based study of 538 patients with newly detected urinary bladder neoplasms followed during 5 years. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003; 37(3):195-201. DOI: 10.1080/00365590310008037. View