Advertisement

A View of the Future: The Role of Pathologists

  • Eva Compérat
Chapter

Abstract

To ensure the correct and complete report of all histological elements and to allow more accurate comparison of different studies from different institutions, standardisation of pathology reports will become an essential step in the process of improving patient care. The identification and description of rare variant histologies as well as the substaging of T1 tumors will help to improve a better patient’s risk stratification and an even more individualized therapy. Finally, the number of lymphnodes (LNs) examined after radical surgery, the number of positive LNs, the presence/absence of extracapsular invasion, the size of the largest metastases as well as the size of the positive LNs will be fundamental required information that will allow to improve the prediction of patients’ prognosis after radical cystectomy.

Keywords

Variant histology T1 substaging Pathology report Lymph node density Prediction 

References

  1. 1.
    Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amin MB, et al. Update for the practicing pathologist: the international consultation on urologic disease-European association of urology consultation on bladder cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Alfred Witjes J, et al. Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:462–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sangoi AR, Beck AH, Amin MB, Cheng L, Epstein JI, Hansel DE, Iczkowski KA, Lopez-Beltran A, Oliva E, Paner GP, Reuter VE, Ro JY, Shah RB, Shen SS, Tamboli P, McKenney JK. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the urinary tract among urologic pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(9):1367–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moschini M, Shariat SF, Freschi M, Soria F, D’Andrea D, Abufaraj M, Foerster B, Dell’Oglio P, Zaffuto E, Mattei A, Salonia A, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Gallina A, Colombo R. Is transurethral resection alone enough for the diagnosis of histological variants? A single-center study. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:528.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams SB, Kamat AM. Optimum management of non-muscle-invasive micropapillary variant urothelial carcinoma: possibility for missed chance of cure? BJU Int. 2016;118:349–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paner GP, Annaiah C, Gulmann C, Rao P, Ro JY, Hansel DE, Shen SS, Lopez-Beltran A, Aron M, Luthringer DJ, De Peralta-Venturina M, Cho Y, Amin MB. Immunohistochemical evaluation of novel and traditional markers associated with urothelial differentiation in a spectrum of variants of urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Hum Pathol. 2014;45:1473–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Compérat E, McKenney JK, Hartmann A, Hes O, Bertz S, Varinot J, Brimo F. Large nested variant of urothelial carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 36 cases. Histopathology. 2017;71(5):703–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williamson SR, Zhang S, Lopez-Beltran A, Shah RB, Montironi R, Tan PH, Wang M, Baldridge LA, MacLennan GT, Cheng L. Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the urinary bladder: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:474–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirkali Z, et al. Bladder cancer: epidemiology, staging and grading, and diagnosis. Urology. 2005;6:4–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Rhijn BW, Burger M, Lotan Y, et al. Recurrence and progression of disease in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: from epidemiology to treatment strategy. Eur Urol. 2009;56:430–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Compérat E, et al. An interobserver reproducibility study on invasiveness of bladder cancer using virtual microscopy and heatmaps. Histopathology. 2013;63:756–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herr HW, Donat SM, Dalbagni G. Can restaging transurethral resection of T1 bladder cancer select patients for immediate cystectomy? J Urol. 2007;177:75–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orsola A, Trias I, Raventos CX, et al. Initial high-grade T1 urothelial cell carcinoma: feasibility and prognostic significance of lamina propria invasion microstaging (T1a/b/c) in BCG-treated and BCG-non-treated patients. Eur Urol. 2005;48:231–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Younes M, Sussman J, True LD. Prognostic interest in discriminating muscularis mucosa invasion (T1a vs T1b) in nonmuscle invasive bladder carcinoma: French national multicenter study with central pathology review. Cancer. 1990;66:543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rouprêt M, et al. Comité de Cancérologie de l’Association Française d’Urologie. J Urol. 2013;189:2069–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruins HM, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1065–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee D, et al. Lymph node density vs. the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM nodal staging system in node-positive bladder cancer in patients undergoing extended or super-extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Urol Oncol. 2017;16:S1078–439.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zehnder P, et al. Radical cystectomy with super-extended lymphadenectomy: impact of separate vs en bloc lymph node submission on analysis and outcomes. BJU Int. 2016;117:253–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stein JP, Cai J, Groshen S, Skinner DG. Risk factors for patients with pelvic lymph node metastases following radical cystectomy with en bloc pelvic lymphadenectomy: concept of lymph node density. J Urol. 2003;170:35–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perry-Keene J, Ferguson P, Samaratunga H, Nacey JN, Delahunt B. Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases. Histopathology. 2014;64:399–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Masson-Lecomte A, et al. External validation of extranodal extension and lymph node density as predictors of survival in node-positive bladder cancer after radical cystectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1389–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engvad B, Poulsen MH, Staun PW, Walter S, Marcussen N. Histological step sectioning of pelvic lymph nodes increases the number of identified lymph node metastases. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:45–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang HJ, Solanki S, Traboulsi S, Kassouf W, Brimo F. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy-related histologic changes in radical cystectomy: assessment accuracy and prediction of response. Hum Pathol. 2016;53:35–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyHôpital Tenon, HUEP, Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations