2002
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-002-0633-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of bladder cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems

Abstract: Recently, two new classification systems for grading of urothelial neoplasms have been published. The objective of both was to avoid the overdiagnosis of cancer and to create better criteria for the grades. The WHO/ISUP classification of 1998 distinguishes papilloma, papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP), low and high grade carcinomas, whereas the WHO 1999 system subdivides the high grade into grades II and III, and is otherwise identical. This note summarizes studies supporting the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
40
0
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
40
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…41,42 Moreover, it remains to be seen whether the revised histopathologic classification of urothelial tumors, though designed for better discrimination between the biologic potentials of bladder neoplasms, will lead to changes in the management of bladder cancer patients. 38,38,43 This issue is discussed controversially, 39,40,44,45 and the clinical significance of identifying lesions of low malignant potential remains to be established. 39,43 Nevertheless, the consequences of missing a small low-grade pTa tumor seem acceptable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…41,42 Moreover, it remains to be seen whether the revised histopathologic classification of urothelial tumors, though designed for better discrimination between the biologic potentials of bladder neoplasms, will lead to changes in the management of bladder cancer patients. 38,38,43 This issue is discussed controversially, 39,40,44,45 and the clinical significance of identifying lesions of low malignant potential remains to be established. 39,43 Nevertheless, the consequences of missing a small low-grade pTa tumor seem acceptable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At this time, no patient showed clinical evidence of infection, or other inflammatory conditions. Tumour stage was assessed using the 1997 AJCC/UICC TNM classification (Sobin and Wittekind, 1997), and tumour grade was performed according to the 1999 WHO grading system (Busch and Algaba, 2002).…”
Section: Methods Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Le grade 2 constitue ainsi un grade intermédiaire situé entre les deux extrêmes du spectre, regroupant des tumeurs hétérogènes et dans lequel les pathologistes tendent à classer la majorité des tumeurs 5,6 . Les proportions des tumeurs G2 varient de 13 à 69 % selon les séries 7,8 .…”
Section: Discussionunclassified