Skip to main content
Log in

Différentes classifications des tumeurs urothéliales

Classification of urothelial tumors

  • Mise au Point / Update
  • Published:
Oncologie

Résumé

Les tumeurs urothéliales sont classées en fonction de leur grade, degré d’agressivité cytologique et leur stade, niveau d’infiltration de la paroi vésicale. La parution, en avril 2004, du livre de l’OMS a enfin permis la large diffusion de la nouvelle classification du grade des tumeurs vésicales dite « de consensus » entre l’OMS et l’ISUP qui avait été proposée dès 1998. Cette nouvelle classification insiste par ailleurs sur la description de « variantes morphologiques » des tumeurs urothéliales essentiellement infiltrantes qui se caractérisent par une morphologie différente et une évolution le plus souvent mais non constamment plus péjorative. Ces différents caractères que sont le grade et le stade permettent de décider de la prise en charge thérapeutique et de la surveillance ultérieure de ces tumeurs. Les modes d’évaluation de ces critères ont évolué au cours du temps.

Abstract

Urothelial tumors are classified according to their grade, degree of cytological aggression, stage, and level of infiltration of the vesical wall. A new classification system was proposed by WHO/ISUP in 1998 and updated by WHO in April 2004. This new classification also insists on the description of “morphological variants” of essentially infiltrating urothelial tumors that are characterized by different morphology and evolution most often but not consistently more pejorative. The therapeutic treatment and subsequent monitoring of these tumors depend upon the tumor’s stage and grade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Références

  1. Broders AC (1922) Epithelioma of the genito-urinary organs. Ann Surg 75: 574–604

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dukes CE, Masina F (1949) Classification of epithelial tumours of the bladder. Br J Urol 21: 273–95, illust

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chome J, Algazi L (1957) Classification and prognosis of primary epithelial tumors of bladder. Bull Assoc Fr Etud Cancer 44: 278–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergkvist A, Ljungqvist A, Moberger G (1965) Classification of bladder tumours based on the cellular pattern. Preliminary report of a clinical-pathological study of 300 cases with a minimum follow-up of eight years. Acta Chir Scand 130: 371–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H (1973) Histological typing of urinary bladder tumors. Ed World Health Organization, Genève

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jordan AM, Weingarten J, Murphy WM (1987) Transitional cell neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Can biologic potential be predicted from histologic grading? Cancer 60: 2766–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK (1998) The world health organization/international society of urological pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder consensus conference committee. Am J Surg Pathol 22: 1435–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eble JN, Sauter G, Eptein JI, Sesterhenn IAE (2004) World health organization classification of tumours of the urinary system and male gental organs. IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cheng L, Bostwick DG (2000) World health organization and international society of urological pathology classification and two-number grading system of bladder tumors: Reply Cancer 88: 1513–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cao D, Vollmer RT, Luly J, et al. (2010) Comparison of 2004 and 1973 world health organization grading systems and their relationship to pathologic staging for predicting long-term prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Urology 76: 593–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nishiyama N, Kitamura H, Maeda T, et al. (2013) Clinicopathological analysis of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: prognostic value and clinical reliability of the 2004 WHO classification system. Jpn J Clin Oncol 43: 1124–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yin H, Leong AS (2004) Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial tumors: validation of the 1998 WHO/isup system by immunophenotyping and follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 121: 679–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhong MZ, Guo SJ, Jiang LJ, et al. (2013) Prognostic significance of the 2004 WHO classification compared with the 1973 WHO classification for organ-confined invasive bladder cancer. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 51: 538–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burger M, van der Aa MN, van Oers JM, et al. (2008) Prediction of progression of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer by WHO 1973 and 2004 grading and by fgfr3 mutation status: a prospective study. Eur Urol 54: 835–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schned AR, Andrew AS, Marsit CJ, et al. (2007) Survival following the diagnosis of noninvasive bladder cancer: WHO/International Society of Urological Pathology versus WHO classification systems. J Urol 178: 1196–200; discussion 1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen Z, Ding W, Xu K, et al. (2012) The 1973 WHO classification is more suitable than the 2004 WHO classification for predicting prognosis in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PLoS One 7: e47199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Otto W, Denzinger S, Fritsche HM, et al. (2011) The WHO classification of 1973 is more suitable than the WHO classification of 2004 for predicting survival in pt1 urothelial bladder cancer. BJU Int 107: 404–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pellucchi F, Freschi M, Ibrahim B, et al. (2011) Clinical reliability of the 2004 WHO histological classification system compared with the 1973 WHO system for ta primary bladder tumors. J Urol 186: 2194–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boustead GB, Fowler S, Swamy R, et al. (2014) Stage, grade and pathological characteristics of bladder cancer in the uk: British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) urological tumour registry. BJU Int 113: 924–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Rhijn BW, Musquera M, Liu L, et al. (2015) Molecular and clinical support for a four-tiered grading system for bladder cancer based on the WHO 1973 and 2004 classifications. Mod Pathol doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.154. [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  21. Beltran AL, Cheng L, Montironi R, et al. (2014) Clinicopathological characteristics and outcome of nested carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Virchows Arch 465: 199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Linder BJ, Frank I, Cheville JC, et al. (2013) Outcomes following radical cystectomy for nested variant of urothelial carcinoma: a matched cohort analysis. J Urol 189: 1670–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Amin MB, Ro JY, el-Sharkawy T, et al. (1994) Micropapillary variant of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Histologic pattern resembling ovarian papillary serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 18: 1224–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fairey AS, Daneshmand S, Wang L, et al. (2014) Impact of micropapillary urothelial carcinoma variant histology on survival after radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol 32: 110–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vourganti S, Harbin A, Singer EA, et al. (2013) Low grade micropapillary urothelial carcinoma, does it exist? — analysis of management and outcomes from the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (seer) database. J Cancer 4: 336–42

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang JK, Boorjian SA, Cheville JC, et al. (2012) Outcomes following radical cystectomy for micropapillary bladder cancer versus pure urothelial carcinoma: a matched cohort analysis. World J Urol 30: 801–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Masson-Lecomte A, Xylinas E, Bouquot M, et al. (2015) Oncological outcomes of advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer with a micropapillary variant after radical cystectomy and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wang J, Wang FW (2015) The natural history, treatment pattern, and outcomes of patients with micropapillary bladder carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pan ST, Wang RC, Liu MY, Chuang SS (2013) Lymphoepithelioma- like carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a report of two cases. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol 35: 344–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pantelides NM, Ivaz SL, Falconer A, et al. (2012) Lymphoepithelioma- like carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a case report and review of systemic treatment options. Urol Ann 4: 45–7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Williamson SR, Zhang S, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. (2011) Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the urinary bladder: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. Am J Surg Pathol 35: 474–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pignot G, Molinie V, Coloby P, et al. (2011) New concepts in the management of mibc in 2010. Prog Urol 21: S38–S42

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Mazerolles.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazerolles, C., Delas, A. Différentes classifications des tumeurs urothéliales. Oncologie 17, 143–149 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-015-2501-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-015-2501-8

Mots clés

Keywords

Navigation