Shariat - Figure 33
Challenges in the identification, classification, and precise diagnosis of variant histology based on TUR specimens
FIG. 33: Accurate reporting of variant histology suffers from challenges in its identification, classification, and precise diagnosis.[40] TUR specimens are often inadequate or difficult to map for variant histology presence and type. Owing to tumor heterogeneity and sample errors, only around 40–50% of patients suspected for variant histology are found actually to have that variant histology (Figure). [41,42] Community pathologists who are not well trained in the identification and importance of thorough awareness of these variant histologies may miss a large portion of these tumors. It has been reported that only 44% of variant histologies were detected in multiple cases, leaving the remaining ones undetected.[43] Today we do not know whether the extent of the variant histologies (focal or extensive), or what possible cut-off component (20%) will determine the prognosis.[44]
References
Mochini M. Nat Rev Urol. In press
Hansel DE, Amin MB, Comperat E, et al. A contemporary update on pathology standards for bladder cancer: transurethral resection and radical cystectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2013;63:321−32 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.008
Abd El-Latif A, Watts KE, Elson P, et al. The sensitivity of initial transurethral resection or biopsy of bladder tumor(s) for detecting bladder cancer variants on radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2013;189:1263−7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.054
Shah RB, Montgomery JS, Montie JE, Kunju LP. Variant (divergent) histologic differentiation in urothelial carcinoma is under-recognized in community practice: impact of mandatory central pathology review at a large referral hospital. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1650−5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.04.009
Jozwicki W, Domaniewski J, Skok Z,et al. Usefulness of histologic homogeneity estimation of muscle-invasive urinary bladder cancer in an individual prognosis: a mapping study. 2005;66:1122−6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.134
