Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relation of the World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) system for bladder neoplasia to prognosis. METHODS: A total of 134 patients with pTa bladder tumors were identified. We excluded cases with prior or concurrent carcinoma in situ or invasion (pT1 or pT2). Progression was defined as a tumor recurrence with either lamina propria (pT1) or muscularis propria (pT2) invasion or carcinoma in situ. Age at diagnosis, sex, tumor size, multifocality, and grade (WHO, WHO/ISUP) were entered into a Cox multivariate analysis to predict progression. RESULTS: The distribution of WHO papilloma, WHO G1, WHO G2, and WHO G3 was 5.2%, 31.3%, 59%, and 4.5%, respectively. The distribution of WHO/ISUP papilloma, tumors of low malignant potential, low-grade carcinomas, and high-grade carcinomas was 2.2%, 21.6%, 13%, and 21.6%, respectively. The mean and median follow-up was 56.2 and 50 months, respectively. The 90-month actuarial risk of progression for WHO papilloma, G1, G2, and G3 was 0%, 11%, 24%, and 60%, respectively. The corresponding progression rate for WHO/ISUP papilloma, tumors of low malignant potential, low-grade carcinoma, and high-grade carcinoma was 0%, 8%, 13%, and 51%, respectively. In separate analyses, WHO grade (P = 0.003) and tumor size (P = 0.03), as well as WHO/ISUP (P = 0.002) and tumor size (P = 0.04), independently predicted progression. CONCLUSIONS: WHO G3 has a more rapid progression rate and a slightly worse long-term progression rate compared with WHO/ISUP high-grade carcinoma. However, although only 4.5% of tumors were WHO G3, we were able to classify 21.6% as WHO/ISUP high-grade carcinoma with a poor prognosis. Use of the WHO/ISUP system allows urologists to more closely follow a larger group of patients at high risk of progression

PURPOSE: We addressed whether Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7 cancers on needle biopsy behave differently and whether this behavior is independent of the number of cores involved by cancer. If it is not an independent predictor of prognosis, one may report Gleason score 7 cancer with the number of positive cores without regard to whether the primary pattern was 3 or 4. This practice would remove a source of poor interobserver reproducibility when grading prostate cancer on needle biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 537 patients with Gleason score 7 tumors on biopsy. The results of patient preoperative digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement and age were used to predict 4 outcomes based on assessment of the corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, including 1) pathological stage (organ confined, focal extraprostatic extension, nonfocal extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle-lymph node involvement), 2) organ confinement (yes/no), 3) Gleason score and 4) surgical margin status (positive/negative) RESULTS: Multivariate regression of postoperative Gleason score groups against all 5 input variables (3 + 4 versus 4 + 3, number of positive cores, PSA, age and digital rectal examination) yielded a statistically significant positive correlation with preoperative PSA (p <0.001) and preoperative Gleason scores of 4 + 3 versus 3 + 4 on biopsy (p <0.001). Pathological stage correlated with preoperative PSA (p <0.001), Gleason score 4 + 3 disease (p = 0.016), positive digital rectal examination (p <0.001) and 3 or more positive cores (p = 0.016). Positive surgical margins were predicted only by preoperative PSA (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Because the biological behavior of biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 of Gleason score 7 cancer differs regardless of the number of cores involved, future nomograms predicting pathological stage would benefit from examining 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 disease separately