Advertisement

Classification and Histologic Grading of Urothelial Neoplasms by the WHO 2004 (ISUP 1998) Criteria

  • Jesse K. McKenney
Chapter

Abstract

Numerous histologic grading or classification systems have been applied to urothelial neoplasms, but the World Health Organization (WHO) 2004/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) system is now widely accepted by pathologists and by both the American Urological Association and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. This chapter addresses the current WHO/ISUP histologic criteria for the grading/classification of both papillary urothelial neoplasia and flat urothelial lesions with atypia.

Keywords

Papilloma Papillary urothelial carcinoma Papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential Carcinoma in situ Dysplasia Urothelial atypia 

References

  1. 1.
    Sauter G, Algaba F, Amin MB, et al. Non-invasive urothelial tumors. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA, editors. World health organization classification of tumors pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004. pp. 110–23.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti III A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK. 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. 1998;22:1435–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H. Histological typing of urinary bladder tumours. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Eble JN. Intraepithelial lesions of the urothelium: an interobserver reproducibility study with a proposed terminology and histologic criteria. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:69.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murata S, Iseki M, Kinjo M, et al. Molecular and immunohistologic analyses cannot reliably solve diagnostic variation of flat intraepithelial lesions of the urinary bladder. Am J Clin Path. 2010;134:862–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKenney JK, Gomez JA, Desai S, Lee MW, Amin MB. Morphologic expressions of urothelial carcinoma in situ: a detailed evaluation of its histologic patterns with emphasis on carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:356–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenney JK, Desai S, Cohen C, Amin MB. Discriminatory immunohistochemical staining of urothelial carcinoma in situ and non-neoplastic urothelium: an analysis of cytokeratin 20, p53, and CD44 antigens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:1074–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edgecombe A, Nguyen BN, Djordjevic B, Belanger EC, Mai KT. Utility of cytokeratin 5/6, cytokeratin 20, and p16 in the diagnosis of reactive urothelial atypia and noninvasive component of urothelial neoplasia. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012;20:264–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harnden P, Eardley I, Joyce AD, Southgate J. Cytokeratin 20 as an objective marker of urothelial dysplasia. B J Urol. 1996;78:870–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kunju LP, Lee CT, Montie J, Shah RB. Utility of cytokeratin 20 and Ki-67 as markers of urothelial dysplasia. Pathol Int. 2005;55:248–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mallofre C, Castillo M, Morente V, Sole M. Immunohistochemical expression of CK20, p53, and Ki-67 as objective markers of urothelial dysplasia. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:187–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliva E, Pinheiro NF, Heney NM, et al. Immunohistochemistry as an adjunct in the differential diagnosis of radiation-induced atypia versus urothelial carcinoma in situ of the bladder: a study of 45 cases. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:860–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yin H, He Q, Li T, Leong AS. Cytokeratin 20 and Ki-67 to distinguish carcinoma in situ from flat non-neoplastic urothelium. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2006;14:260–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stepan A, Simionescu C, Margaritescu C, Ciurea R. P16, c-erbB2 and Ki67 immunoexpression in urothelial carcinomas of the bladder. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2011;52:653–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun W, Zhang PL, Herrera GA. p53 protein and Ki-67 overexpression in urothelial dysplasia of bladder. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2002;10:327–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yin M, Bastacky S, Parwani AV, McHale T, Dhir R. p16ink4 immunoreactivity is a reliable marker for urothelial carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:527–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng L, Darson M, Cheville JC, et al. Urothelial papilloma of the bladder. Clinical and biologic implications. Cancer. 1999;86:2098–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magi-Galluzzi C, Epstein JI. Urothelial papilloma of the bladder: a review of 34 de novo cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1615–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKenney JK, Amin MB, Young RH. Urothelial (transitional cell) papilloma of the urinary bladder: a clinicopathologic study of 26 cases. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:623–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malmstrom PU, Busch C, Norlen BJ. Recurrence, progression and survival in bladder cancer. A retrospective analysis of 232 patients with greater than or equal to 5-year follow-up. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1987;21:185–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Samaratunga H, Makarov DV, Epstein JI. Comparison of WHO/ISUP and WHO classification of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms for risk of progression. Urology. 2002;60:315–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Busch C, Algaba F. 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. 2002;441:105–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alsheikh A, Mohamedali Z, Jones E, Masterson J, Gilks CB. Comparison of the WHO/ISUP classification and cytokeratin 20 expression in predicting the behavior of low-grade papillary urothelial tumors. World/Health Organization/Internattional society of urologic pathology. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:267–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bertz S, Otto W, Denzinger S, et al. Combination of CK20 and Ki-67 immunostaining analysis predicts recurrence, progression, and cancer-specific survival in pT1 urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):218–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cina SJ, Lancaster-Weiss KJ, Lecksell K, Epstein JI. Correlation of Ki-67 and p53 with the new world health organization/international society of urological pathology classification system for urothelial neoplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:646–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kilicli-Camur N, Kilicaslan I, Gulluoglu MG, Esen T, Uysal V. Impact of p53 and Ki-67 in predicting recurrence and progression of superficial (pTa and pT1) urothelial cell carcinomas of urinary bladder. Pathol Int. 2002;52:463–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Santos L, Amaro T, Costa C, et al. Ki-67 index enhances the prognostic accuracy of the urothelial superficial bladder carcinoma risk group classification. Int J Cancer. 2003;105:267–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolf HK, Stober C, Hohenfellner R, Leissner J. Prognostic value of p53, p21/WAF1, Bcl-2, Bax, Bak and Ki-67 immunoreactivity in pT1 G3 urothelial bladder carcinomas. Tumour Biol. 2001;22:328–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kunze E, Schauer A, Schmitt M. Histology and histogenesis of two different types of inverted urothelial papillomas. Cancer. 1983;51:348–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fine SW, Epstein JI. Inverted urothelial papillomas with foamy or vacuolated cytoplasm. Human Pathol. 2006;37:1577–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fine SW, Chan TY, Epstein JI. Inverted papillomas of the prostatic urethra. A J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:975–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Broussard JN, Tan PH, Epstein JI. Atypia in inverted urothelial papillomas: pathology and prognostic significance. Human Pathol. 2004;35:1499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sudo T, Irie A, Ishii D, Satoh E, Mitomi H, Baba S. Histopathologic and biologic characteristics of a transitional cell carcinoma with inverted papilloma-like endophytic growth pattern. Urology. 2003;61:837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amin MB, Gomez JA, Young RH. Urothelial transitional cell carcinoma with endophytic growth patterns: a discussion of patterns of invasion and problems associated with assessment of invasion in 18 cases. A J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:1057–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyCleveland Clinic, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine InstituteClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations