The new World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) classification for TA, T1 bladder tumors: is it an improvement?

The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) consensus classification of urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder was developed in an attempt to both improve upon prior classification systems as well as to adopt a classification system that would have widespread acceptance. Prior to this classification system, numerous diverse grading schemes for bladder cancer existed whereby the same lesion seen by different pathologists would result in very different diagnoses solely based on definitional differences of lesions. Another strength of the consensus classification system is that it provides detailed histological criteria for papillary urothelial lesions. In contrast, prior grading systems for bladder tumors were vague and subjective. The current classification system allows for designation of a lesion (papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential), which biologically has a very low risk of progression, yet is not entirely benign. In the past, these lesions were a source of controversy, as some experts in the field required very restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of papilloma and would label such lesions as malignant. Other experts in the field, not wanting to label a patient with such a low-grade papillary lesion as having carcinoma, would diagnose these lesions as papilloma. This intermediate category allows both schools of thought to diagnose a lesion as not fully malignant, yet still documents need for additional follow-up. Since its inception, several studies have been published documenting the relationship of tumors classified using the WHO/ISUP system to prognosis. These articles are summarized within this review.

[1]  Lawrence D. True,et al.  The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder , 1998 .

[2]  J. Epstein,et al.  Papillary urothelial hyperplasia. A precursor to papillary neoplasms. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential , 1999, Cancer.

[4]  J. McKenney,et al.  Urothelial (Transitional Cell) Papilloma of the Urinary Bladder: A Clinicopathologic Study of 26 Cases , 2003, Modern Pathology.

[5]  S. Loening,et al.  Superficial bladder cancer: progression and recurrence. , 1983, The Journal of urology.

[6]  G. Jakse,et al.  Urothelial dysplasia and carcinoma in situ of the bladder , 1986, Cancer.

[7]  E. Jones,et al.  Comparison of the WHO/ISUP Classification and Cytokeratin 20 Expression in Predicting the Behavior of Low-Grade Papillary Urothelial Tumors , 2001, Modern Pathology.

[8]  A. Formiconi,et al.  Biologic Differences Between Noninvasive Papillary Urothelial Neoplasms of Low Malignant Potential and Low-Grade (Grade 1) Papillary Carcinomas of the Bladder , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  J. McKenney,et al.  Relationship of Cytokeratin 20 and CD44 Protein Expression with WHO/ISUP Grade in pTa and pT1 Papillary Urothelial Neoplasia , 2000, Modern Pathology.

[10]  M. Boon,et al.  Analysis of the performance of pathologists in the grading of bladder tumors. , 1983, Human pathology.

[11]  J. Eble,et al.  Benign and low-grade papillary lesions of the urinary bladder: a review of the papilloma-papillary carcinoma controversy, and a report of five typical papillomas. , 1989, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[12]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prognostic significance of atypical papillary urothelial hyperplasia. , 2002, Human pathology.

[13]  C. Busch,et al.  Stage progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors: relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[14]  P D Abel,et al.  Differing interpretations by pathologists of the pT category and grade of transitional cell cancer of the bladder. , 1988, British journal of urology.

[15]  A. C. Broders EPITHELIOMA OF THE GENITO‐URINARY ORGANS , 1922, Annals of surgery.

[16]  L. Koss Mapping of the urinary bladder: its impact on the concepts of bladder cancer. , 1979, Human pathology.

[17]  N. Christensen,et al.  Grading of human urothelial carcinoma based on nuclear atypia and mitotic frequency. II. Prognostic importance. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[18]  J. Epstein,et al.  Correlation of Ki-67 and p53 with the new World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology Classification System for Urothelial Neoplasia. , 2009 .

[19]  L. Sobin,et al.  Histological Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours , 1999, International Histological Classification of Tumours.

[20]  R. Elton,et al.  Prognostic significance of biopsy results of normal-looking mucosa in cases of superficial bladder cancer. , 1983, British journal of urology.

[21]  G. Moberger,et al.  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. , 1965, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica.

[22]  W. Murphy,et al.  Transitional cell neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Can biologic potential be predicted from histologic grading? , 1987, Cancer.

[23]  H. Samaratunga,et al.  Comparison of WHO/ISUP and WHO classification of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms for risk of progression. , 2002, Urology.

[24]  B. Norlén,et al.  Recurrence, progression and survival in bladder cancer. A retrospective analysis of 232 patients with greater than or equal to 5-year follow-up. , 2010, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.

[25]  A. Althausen,et al.  Non-invasive papillary carcinoma of the bladder associated with carcinoma in situ. , 1976, The Journal of urology.

[26]  G. Farrow,et al.  Morphological and clinical observations of patients with early bladder cancer treated with total cystectomy. , 1976, Cancer research.