What are the advantages and disadvantages, if any, of the revised (2004) WHO classification of urinary bladder neoplasms?
The World Health Organization (WHO) classification system published in 1973 had been most commonly used in the world until several years ago when this system was challenged. In 1997, a consensus conference was organized by Dr. F.K. Mostofi. It consisted of pathologists, urologists, and oncologists. The meeting was followed by another in 1998 with participation of members of the International Society of Urogical Pathology (ISUP). Recommendations were made to the WHO committee on urothelial tumors. Papillary tumors were divided into four categories: papilloma; papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP); carcinoma, low grade (CaLG); and carcinoma, high grade (CaHG). Subsequently, this classification was adopted as the 2004 WHO classification system. As a result, grade 1 carcinomas by the 1973 WHO classification were reclassified as PUNLMP or CaLG; grade 2 carcinomas were assigned to the CaLG and CaHG groups; and grade 3 carcinomas became CaHG.
KeywordsWorld Health Organization Urinary Bladder Transitional Cell Carcinoma Urothelial Carcinoma Progression Rate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.Mostofi FK, Sorbin LH, Torloni H (1973) Histological typing of urinary bladder tumours: international histological classification of tumours. No. 10. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
- 10.Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK, and the Bladder Consensus Conference Committee (1998) The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 22: 1435–1448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.WHO (2004) WHO histological classification of tumours of the urinary tract. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (eds) Pathology and genetics of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs: World Health Organization classification of tumours. IARS Press, Lyon, p 90.Google Scholar
- 14.Murphy WM (2001) Editorial comments. In: Holmang S, Andius P, Hedelin H, Wester K, Busch C, Johansson SL. Staging progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors; relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J Urol 165: 1124–1130.Google Scholar
- 15.Oosterhuis JWA, Schapers RFM, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Pauwels RPE (2002) Histological grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: prognostic value of the 1998 WHO/ISUP classification system and comparison with conventional grading system. J Clin Pathol 55: 900–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Yorukoglu K, Tuna B, Dikicioglu E, Duzcan E, Isisag A, Sen S, Mungan U, Kirkali Z (2003) Reproducibility of the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Virchows Arch 443: 734–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Robertson AJ, Swanson Beck J, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lessels AM, McLaren KM, Moss SM, Simpson JG, Smith GD, Tavadia HB, Walker F (1990) Observer variability in histopathological reporting of transitional cell carcinoma and epithelial dysplasia in bladders. J Clin Pathol 43: 17–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar