Virchows Archiv

, Volume 443, Issue 6, pp 734–740

Reproducibility of the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder

  • Kutsal Yorukoglu
  • Burcin Tuna
  • Emel Dikicioglu
  • Ender Duzcan
  • Aydin Isisag
  • Sait Sen
  • Ugur Mungan
  • Ziya Kirkali
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Classification of Urothelial Neoplasms (1998 WHO/ISUP classification) and the 1973 WHO classification.

Methods

A teaching set with 5 slides of each papillary neoplasm of low malignant potential, low-grade papillary carcinoma, high-grade papillary carcinoma, and a guideline, as well as a study set of 30 slides containing ten cases of each category, were sent to participants. Six pathologists expert in urological pathology reviewed the 30 slides of non-invasive papillary urothelial tumors in the study set. Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility were evaluated using intra- and inter-rater techniques (kappa statistic).

Results

A moderate to substantial intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was achieved for both the 1998 WHO/ISUP and 1973 WHO classification. The results of the two classification systems were not different statistically (P>0.05). Reproducibility was lower in low-grade tumors for both classifications.

Conclusions

The new proposed classification system for non-invasive urothelial neoplasms does not increase the reproducibility. There is still a need for uniformity in grading in order to compare the different studies and therapies and to provide more accurate information for management.

Keywords

Bladder neoplasms Urothelium World Health Organization Classification 

References

  1. 1.
    Abel PD, Henderson D, Bennett MK, Hall RR, Williams G (1988) Differing interpretations by pathologists of the pT category and grade of transitional cell cancer of the bladder. Br J Urol 62:339–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Jonson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologists. Hum Pathol 32:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alsheikh A, Mohamedali Z, Jones E, Masterson J, Gilks CB (2001) Comparison of the WHO-ISUP classification and cytokeratin 20 expression predicting the behavior of low grade papillary urothelial tumors. Mod Pathol 14:267–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blomjous CEM, Smeulders AWM, Baak JPA, Vos W, van Galen EM, Meijer CJLM (1989) A comparative study in morphometric grading of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 11:426–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bostwick DG, Mikuz G (2002) Urothelial papillary (exophytic) neoplasms. Virchows Arch 441:109–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busch C, Algaba F (2002) The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of bladder cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems. Virchows Arch 441:105–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busch C, Engberg A, Norlen BJ, Stenkvist B (1977) Malignancy grading of epithelial bladder tumors. Reproducibility of grading and comparison between forceps biopsy, aspiration biopsy and exfoliative cytology. Scand J Urol Nephrol 11:143–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbin B-E, Ekman P, Gustafson H, Christensen NJ, Sandstedt B, Silfversward C (1991) Grading of human urothelial carcinoma based on nuclear atypia and mitotic frequency. I. Histological description. J Urol 145:968–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 88:1513–1516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng L, Neumann RM, Bostwick DG (1999) Papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential. Clinical and biologic implications. Cancer 86:2102–2108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng L, Neumann RM, Nehra A, Spotts BE, Weaver AL, Bostwick DG (2000) Cancer heterogeneity and its biologic implications in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 88:1663–1670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng L, Neumann RM, Weaver AL, Cheville JC, Leibovich BC, Ramnani DM, Schere BG, Nehra A, Zincke H, Bostwick DG (2000) Grading and staging of bladder carcinoma in transurethral resection specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 113:275–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cramer SF (1988) Methods for evaluating reproducibility in anatomic pathology. Hum Pathol 19:1472–1473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desai S, Lim SD, Jimenez RE, Chun T, Keane TE, McKenney JK, Zavala-Pompa A, Cohen C, Young RH, Amin MB (2000) Relationship of cytokeratin 20 and CD44 protein expression with WHO/ISUP grade in pTa and pT1 papillary urothelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 13:1315–1323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK, The Bladder Consensus Conference Committee (1999) The World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1435–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holman CDJ, James IR, Heenan PJ, Matz LR, Blackwell JB, Kelsall GR, Singh A, Seldam RE (1982) An improved method of analysis of observer variation between pathologists. Histopathology 6:581–589PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmang S, Hedelin H, Anderström C, Johansson SL (1995) The relationship among multiple recurrences, progression and prognosis of patients with stages Ta and T1 transitional cell cancer of the bladder followed for at least 20 years. J Urol 153:1823–1827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holmang S, Hedelin H, Anderstrom C, Holmberg E, Busch C, Johansson SL (1999) Recurrence and progression in low grade papillary urothelial tumors. J Urol 162:702–707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holmang S, Andius P, Hedelin H, Wester K, Busch C, Johansson SL (2001) Stage progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors: relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J Urol 165:1124–1130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jordan AM, Weingarten J, Murphy WM (1987) Transitional cell neoplasms of the urinary bladder: can biologic potential be predicted from histologic grading? Cancer 60:2766–2774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kakizoe T, Tobisu K, Mizunati T, Tsutsumi M, Tanaka Y, Sakamoto M (1992) Analysis by step sectioning of early invasive bladder cancer with special reference to G3 pT1 disease. Jpn J Cancer Res 83:1354–1358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lipponen P, Simpanen H, Pesonen E, Eskelinen M, Sotarauta M, Collan Y (1989) Potential of morphometry in grading transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Path Res Pract 185:617–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Colanzi P, Streccioni M, Scarpelli M, Thompson D, Bartels PH (2002) Improving inter-observer agreement and certainty level in diagnosing and grading papillary urothelial neoplasms: usefulness of a Bayesian belief network. Eur Urol 41:449–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H (1973) Histological typing of urinary bladder tumours. Volume 10. Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mostofi FK, Davis CJ, Seterhenn IA (1999) Histological typing of urinary bladder tumors. World Health Organization international histological classification of tumours, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy WM (1999) Bladder cancer redefined. Cancer 86:1890–1892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murphy WM, Takezawa K, Maruniak NA (2002) Interobserver discrepancy using the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of urothelial neoplasms: practical choices for patient care. J Urol 168:968–972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olsen LH, Overgaard S, Frederiksen P, Ladefoged C, Ludwigsen E, Petri J, Poulsen JT (1993) The reliability of staging and grading of bladder tumors. Scand J Urol Nephrol 27:349–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ooms ECM, Anderson WAD, Alons CL, Boon ME, Veldhuizen RW (1983) Analysis of the performance of pathologists in the grading of bladder tumors. Hum Pathol 14:140–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oosterhuis JWA, Schapers RFM, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Pauwels RPE, Newling DW, ten Kate F (2002) Histological grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: prognostic value of the 1998 WHO/ISUP classification system and comparison with conventional grading systems. J Clin Pathol 55:900–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oyasu R (2000) Urological Pathology classification and two-number grading system of bladder tumors. Cancer 88:1509–1512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pauwels RPE, Schapers RFM, Smeets AWGB, Debruyne FMJ, Geraedts JPM (1988) Grading in superficial bladder cancer. (1) Morphological criteria. Br J Urol 61:129–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pich A, Chiusa L, Formiconi A, Galliano D, Bortolin P, Navone R (2001) Biologic differences between noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential and low-grade (grade 1) papillary carcinomas of the bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 25:1528–1533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reuter VE, Melamed MR (1999) The urothelial tract. In: Sternberg SS (ed) Diagnostic surgical pathology, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 1871Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robertson AJ, Swanson Beck J, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lee FD, Lessells AM, McLaren KM, Moss SM, Simpson JG, Smith GD, Tavadia HB, Walker F (1990) Observer variability in histopathological reporting of transitional cell carcinoma and epithelial dysplasia in bladders. J Clin Pathol 43:17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schapers RFM, Pauwels RPE, Wıjnen JThM, Arends JW, Thunnissen FBJM, Coebergh JWW, Smeets AWGB, Bosman FT (1994) A simplified grading method of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: reproducibility, clinical significance and comparison with other prognostic parameters. Br J Urol 73:625–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sorensen FB, Sasaki M, Fukuzawa S, Yamabe H, Olsen S, Yoshida O (1994) Qualitative and quantitative histopathology in transitional cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder. An international investigation of intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Lab Invest 70:242–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Grove MR, Tosteson ANA (2000) Pathologists’ agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol 24:651–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kutsal Yorukoglu
    • 1
  • Burcin Tuna
    • 1
  • Emel Dikicioglu
    • 2
  • Ender Duzcan
    • 3
  • Aydin Isisag
    • 4
  • Sait Sen
    • 5
  • Ugur Mungan
    • 6
  • Ziya Kirkali
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Department of PathologyDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.School of Medicine, Department of PathologyAdnan Menderes UniversityTurkey
  3. 3.School of Medicine, Department of PathologyPamukkale UniversityTurkey
  4. 4.School of Medicine, Department of PathologyCelal Bayar UniversityTurkey
  5. 5.School of Medicine, Department of PathologyEge UniversityTurkey
  6. 6.School of Medicine, Department of UrologyDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations