The influence of review pathology on study outcome of a randomized multicentre superficial bladder cancer trial. Members of the Dutch South East Cooperative Urological Group.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether differences between local and review pathology in a multicentre study influence the results of treatment and results from prognostic factor analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized multicentre study in superficial bladder cancer is reported, in which the influence of local and review pathology on the study outcome was investigated. RESULTS The conformity between local and review pathology of the pT category was 79.3%, of the grade 70.2%, and the combination of both 59.7%. In local pathology, undergrading was more frequent than overgrading and overstaging more frequent than understaging. However, the risks of recurrent disease in the separate stage and grade groups remained the same after correcting the pathology result. A prognostic factor analysis with regard to the risk of recurrent disease was carried out. The Cox hazard ratios of tumour localization, multiplicity, patient age (significant factors), tumour grade, size, history and gender (not significant) remained almost the same after correction for review pathology. Only the prognostic relevance of tumour stage increased after pathology correction. CONCLUSION We conclude that, although review pathology caused considerable changes in the pathology results, this did not change the results of treatment, and hardly altered the results of a prognostic factor analysis in this randomized study.

[1]  C. Lynch,et al.  Cancer registry problems in classifying invasive bladder cancer. , 1991, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  J. Witjes,et al.  A randomised prospective study comparing intravesical instillations of mitomycin-C, BCG-Tice, and BCG-RIVM in pTa-pT1 tumours and primary carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder. Dutch South-East Cooperative Urological Group. , 1993, European journal of cancer.

[3]  R A Risdon,et al.  Interpretation of biopsies of "normal" urothelium in patients with superficial bladder cancer. MRC Superficial Bladder Cancer Sub Group. , 1991, British journal of urology.

[4]  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.

[5]  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.

[6]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Prognostic factors in superficial bladder cancer. A review. , 1992, European urology.

[7]  M. Soloway,et al.  Surveillance of stage O, grade I bladder cancer by cytology alone--is it acceptable? , 1984, The Journal of urology.

[8]  L S Freedman,et al.  Prognostic factors for recurrence and followup policies in the treatment of superficial bladder cancer: report from the British Medical Research Council Subgroup on Superficial Bladder Cancer (Urological Cancer Working Party). , 1989, The Journal of urology.

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