Tag Archive for: #BJUI

You are here: / #BJUI

Posts

Editorial: Time to re-evaluate and refine re-TUR in bladder cancer?

/1 Comment/by

In this issue of BJUI, Gontero et al. [1] present data from a large multi-centre study that should allow us to re-evaluate and refine the indications for re-transurethral resection (TUR) in bladder cancer.

Herr [2] first described this procedure in 1999 and for the past 16 years the indications have remained largely unchanged and are summarised in the latest European Association of Urology guidelines on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) [3]:

  • After incomplete initial TUR of bladder tumour (TURBT).
  • If there is no muscle in the specimen after initial resection.
  • In all T1 tumours.
  • In all Grade 3 tumours except primary carcinoma in situ.

In a multi-centre retrospective study of 2 451 patients with high-grade (HG)/Grade 3 (G3) T1 NMIBC treated with BCG, Gontero et al. [1]examined 935 patients who had re-TUR (38% of the total, itself a low figure). Patients were divided into four groups according to the presence or absence of detrusor muscle in the first TURBT specimen:

  • No muscle, no re-TUR
  • No muscle, re-TUR
  • Muscle, no re-TUR
  • Muscle, re-TUR

The authors found that re-TUR only had a positive impact on recurrence, progression, cancer-specific and overall survival, if detrusor muscle was not present in the original specimen. Importantly, in the presence of detrusor muscle in the original specimen, re-TUR did not improve outcomes. The authors conclude that re-TUR may be unnecessary in HG/G3 T1 patients if detrusor muscle is present at the first TURBT.

These findings are important for two reasons: firstly, Herr’s [2] paper was the first to draw attention to the finding that TURBT, a routine urological procedure, was often carried out inadequately. In recent years, the importance of carrying out a high-quality TURBT has been increasingly recognised [4], whilst the presence of detrusor muscle in the TURBT specimen has been shown to be a good measure of the technical quality of a TURBT [5]. This paper [1] further reinforces the importance of obtaining detrusor muscle in the first TURBT. Indeed, as failure to do so results in the patient having to have a second operation and delays their treatment, perhaps we should start to think of a failure to obtain detrusor muscle at the first TURBT in much the same way as positive margin rates are used as a measure of the quality of radical prostatectomy and by inference, the skill of the surgeon.

Secondly, re-TUR arguably serves one overarching purpose: to identify patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who have been under-staged by an inadequate first TURBT and who without a re-TUR would be inadequately treated.

Although a secondary role of re-TUR is to identify patients with residual NMIBC, which has some prognostic value, in practice it rarely changes the patient’s management in this setting, which is intravesical therapy usually with BCG. However, in many healthcare systems the timely organisation of a re-TUR within the recommended 6 weeks is challenging and there is usually a further delay of at least 2 weeks until the pathology is reviewed and a patient with NMIBC can finally commence treatment. In this context, it is not surprising that a recent paper in BJUI showed that the interval to re-TUR was a predictor of recurrence and progression and that a re-TUR after 7 weeks was associated with a much worse outcome [6]. It therefore seems logical to reserve re-TUR only for those patients who truly need it, so that limited resources are focused on ensuring that they receive their operation in a timely manner, ideally within 2–4 weeks. If adopted into day-to-day urological practice, the findings by Gontero et al. [1] will allow many patients with HG/G3 T1 and detrusor muscle in the first TURBT specimen to avoid a re-TUR and start intravesical therapy without further delay. Pragmatically, the same should apply to patients with HG/G3 Ta with detrusor muscle in the specimen. On the other hand, HG/G3 T1 patients without detrusor muscle should be fast-tracked for re-TUR as soon as is practicable and certainly no later than 6 weeks.

The article [1] does have some shortcomings. The study design excludes patients with MIBC, so we do not know by comparison how many patients with MIBC were under-staged at the initial TUR based on subsequent re-TUR but as the authors point out, their conclusions would hold true even in this group, as it is very unlikely that one would miss MIBC if there was adequate detrusor muscle in the pathology specimen.

In conclusion, we should consider refining the indications for re-TUR to improve the utilisation of healthcare resources and ensure that for those that need it, a re-TUR is carried promptly whilst for those that do not, essential intravesical treatment is not delayed.

Read the full article
A. Hugh Mostafid, Consultant Urologist and Honorary
Senior Lecturer The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK

 

References

 

1 Gontero P, Sylvester R, Pisano F et al. The impact of re-transurethral resection on clinical outcomes in a large multicentre cohort of patients with T1 high-grade/Grade 3 bladder cancer treated with bacille Calmette-Guerin. BJU Int 2016; 118: 44–52

 

2 Herr HW. The value of a second transurethral resection in evaluating patients with bladder tumors. J Urol 1999; 162: 74–6

 

3 Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M et al. Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (Ta, T1 and CIS). European Association of Urology, 2015. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Non- muscle-invasive-Bladder-Cancer-2015-v1.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2015.

 

4 MostafidH, Brausi M. Measuring and improving the quality of transurethral resection for bladder tumour (TURBT). BJU Int 2012; 109: 1579–82

 

5 Mariappan P, Zachou A, Grigor KM. Detrusor muscle in the first, apparently complete transurethral resection of bladder tumour specimen is a surrogate marker of resection quality, predicts risk of early recurrence, and is dependent on operator experience. Eur Urol 2010; 57:
843–9

 

6 Baltaci S, Bozlu M, Yildirim A et al. Significance of the interval between first and second transurethral resection on recurrence and progression rates in patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with maintenance intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin.
BJU Int 2015; 116: 721–6

 

Video: Impact of Re-TUR on BCG-Treated T1 HG/G3 Bladder Cancer

/by

The impact of re-transurethral resection on clinical outcomes in a large multicentre cohort of patients with T1 high-grade/Grade 3 bladder cancer treated with bacille Calmette–Guerin

Paolo Gontero1, Richard Sylvester2, Francesca Pisano1, Steven Joniau3, Marco Oderda1, Vincenzo Serretta4,Stephane Larre5, Savino Di Stasi6, Bas Van Rhijn7, Alfred J.Witjes8, Anne J. Grotenhuis8, Renzo Colombo9, Alberto Briganti9, Marek Babjuk10, Viktor Soukup10, Per-Uno Malmstrom11, Jacques Irani12, Nuria Malats13, Jack Baniel14, RoyMano14, Tommaso Cai15, Eugene K. Cha16, Peter Ardelt17, John Vakarakis18, Riccardo Bartoletti19, Guido Dalbagni20, Shahrokh F. Shariat16, Evanguelos Xylinas16, Robert J.Karnes21 and Joan Palou22

 

1Urology Clinic, Citta della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Studies of Turin, Turin ,4Department of Surgical, Oncological and Stomatological Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, 6Policlinico Tor Vergata-University of Rome, Rome, 9Dipartimento di Urologia, Universita Vita-Salute. Ospedale S. Raffaele, Milan, 15Department of Urology, SantaChiara Hospital, Trento, 19Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy, 2Formerly Department of Biostatistics, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, 3Oncologic and Reconstructive Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 5Department of Surgical Science, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 7Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, 8Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 10Department of Urology, Motol Hospital, University of Praha, Praha, Czech Republic, 11Department of Urology, Academic Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 12Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Miletrie, University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France, 13Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology Group, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, 22Department of Urology, Fundacio Puigvert, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 14Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Centre, Tel Aviv, Israel, 16Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City, 20Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 21Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA, 17Facharzt fur Urologie, Abteilung fur Urologie. Chirurgische Universitats klinik, Freiburg, Germany, and 18Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

 

Read the full article

Objectives

To determine if a re-transurethral resection (TUR), in the presence or absence of muscle at the first TUR in patients with T1-high grade (HG)/Grade 3 (G3) bladder cancer, makes a difference in recurrence, progression, cancer specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Patients and methods

In a large retrospective multicentre cohort of 2451 patients with T1-HG/G3 initially treated with bacille Calmette–Guérin, 935 (38%) had a re-TUR. According to the presence or absence of muscle in the specimen of the primary TUR, patients were divided in four groups: group 1 (no muscle, no re-TUR), group 2 (no muscle, re-TUR), group 3 (muscle, no re-TUR) and group 4 (muscle, re-TUR). Clinical outcomes were compared across the four groups.

JUlAOTW4Results

Results

Re-TUR had a positive impact on recurrence, progression, CSS and OS only if muscle was not present in the primary TUR specimen. Adjusting for the most important prognostic factors, re-TUR in the absence of muscle had a borderline significant effect on time to recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = 0.08], progression (HR 0.46, P = 0.06), CSS (HR 0.31, P = 0.07) and OS (HR 0.48, P = 0.05). Re-TUR in the presence of muscle in the primary TUR specimen did not improve the outcome for any of the endpoints.

Conclusions

Our retrospective analysis suggests that re-TUR may not be necessary in patients with T1-HG/G3, if muscle is present in the specimen of the primary TUR.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Month: Further Evidence that Bladder Cancer Patients should Stop Smoking

/by

Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post. Smoking in a daily basis can affect your lungs, make sure to improve your indoor air quality just by checking out the latest blaux portable ac reviews.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Trends in the risk of second primary cancer among bladder cancer survivors: a population-based cohort of 10 047 patients

Joris Muller*,†, Pascale Grosclaude‡,§, Benedicte Lapotre-Ledoux§,, Anne-Sophie Woronoff§,**, Anne-Valerie Guizard§,††, Simona Bara§,‡‡, Marc Colonna§,§§, Xavier Troussard§,¶¶, Veronique Bouvier§,***, Brigitte Tretarre§,†††, Michel Velten*,†,§,‡‡‡ and Jeremie Jegu*,†,§
*Bas-Rhin Cancer Registry, EA 3430, FMTS, University of Strasbourg, †Department of Public Health, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, ‡Tarn Cancer Registry, Albi, §
Francim: Reseau francais des registres des cancers, Toulouse, Somme Cancer Registry, Department of Hygiene and Public Health, University Hospital of Amiens, Amiens, **Doubs and Belfort Territory Cancer Registry, University Hospital of Besancon, Besancon, ††Calvados General Cancer Registry, Cancers & Preventions, U 1086 Inserm, Francois Baclesse Centre, Caen, ‡‡Manche Cancer Registry, Cotentin Hospital, Cherbourg-Octeville, §§Isere Cancer Registry, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, ¶¶Basse-Normandie Haematological Malignancies Cancer Registry, University Hospital of Caen, ***Calvados Digestive Cancer Registry, Cancers & Preventions, U 1086 Inserm, Francois Baclesse Centre, Caen, †††Herault Cancer Registry, Research Center, Montpellier , and ‡‡‡Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Paul Strauss Center, Strasbourg, France
Read the full article

Objectives

To determine whether the risk of second primary cancer (SPC) among patients with bladder cancer (BCa) has changed over past years.

Materials and Methods

Data from 10 French population-based cancer registries were used to establish a cohort of 10 047 patients diagnosed with a first invasive (≥T1) BCa between 1989 and 2004 and followed up until 2007. An SPC was defined as the first subsequent primary cancer occurring at least 2 months after a BCa diagnosis. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of metachronous SPC were calculated. Multivariate Poisson regression models were used to assess the direct effect of the year of BCa diagnosis on the risk of SPC.

JulAOTW1Results

Results

The risk of new malignancy among BCa survivors was 60% higher than in the general population (SIR 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51–1.68). Male patients presented a high risk of SPC of the lung (SIR 3.12), head and neck (SIR 2.19) and prostate (SIR 1.54). In multivariate analyses adjusted for gender, age at diagnosis and follow-up, a significant increase in the risk of SPC of the lung was observed over the calendar year of BCa diagnosis (P for linear trend 0.010), with an SIR increasing by 3.7% for each year (95% CI 0.9–6.6%); however, no particular trend was observed regarding the risk of SPC of the head and neck (P = 0.596) or the prostate (P = 0.518).

Conclusions

As the risk of SPC of the lung increased between 1989 and 2004, this study contributes more evidence to support the promotion of tobacco smoking cessation interventions among patients with BCa.

Read more articles of the week

Urology in Zomba, Malawi. Reflecting on surgical care in a Resource-Limited country

/13 Comments/by

Rajiv SingalAt the recent AUA meeting in San Diego as at all of our major meetings, a tremendous amount of data was presented and technology displayed to advance our specialty.   Walking through exhibit hall one sees an expensive bauble at every turn. The advancement of urology over the last 50 years has been remarkable.   We have a lot to be proud of.  I think we have the most interesting, exciting specially in all of medicine.  Urologist are generally technophiles and have always loved to push surgical procedures to new heights.   From robotics, lasers and endourology to advancing the molecular understanding of disease, urologists have always aimed to drive the bus.

As many of you know, I am on a short trip to Malawi Africa. I have written about this elsewhere. I am here on one hand as a board member for Dignitas International.  On the surgical side it is not a mission under the guise of anyone but rather my own personal attempt to understand what urology and surgery in a resource poor country might look like. I have been here in Zomba, Malawi and working at Zomba Central Hospital, which is one of four central hospitals in the country.

1.1

A goal has been to try and assess what the basic urological needs might be in this part of the world and see how I could help bridge the gap, whether it would be with equipment, external manpower or ultimately by improving training and leaving something sustainable. I optimistically set out, confident in my abilities to eventually network and bring colleagues together and establish over time a reasonable urology program that at least resembles something familiar. I have the COSECSA guidelines on what it takes to establish a training program at my side. Perhaps nothing illustrates what a daunting task this will be like my days in surgery this week.

To start with, a typical OR at ZCH requires some refocusing compared to what I am used to. My DaVinci robot is nowhere to be seen

1.2

I made ward rounds with my clinical officer yesterday and lined up several TUR type cases to try and do, with men bleeding from bladder tumours (all invariably Bilharzial disease) as well as men in retention. Some have had catheters for months, even years.

First there is the set up. No discussion about lasers and lifts or any other such fun. We don’t even have the 3L irrigation bags. For my irrigation set up, with a little water and some chlorine pucks we are ready to go.

 

1.31.41.5

My first patient was a TURBT.  A very large, incompletely resected lesion, actively bleeding.  I clearly left disease behind but perhaps he won’t bleed for a while.  The tissue will not be sent to pathology.  Patients need to pay 16,000 MWK for it. The typical pay for many is 20,000-30000/month and 1$USD=700 MWK.  Managing him from any even rudimentary oncological perspective is a non-starter.

The second patient also had a bladder tumour.  It was palpable as a mass to just under the skin.  Again, the goal was to stop some bleeding, at least for a few weeks.    He almost certainly has metastatic disease but I have no way to image and know for sure. I did order a chest xray to look for obvious pulmonary nodules.  He will eventually just quietly die.

Before I could start a third case I found myself in the gynecology OR 2 weeks after a hysterectomy post-delivery for bleeding.  Following an injury, the left ureter was leaking.  I attempted the repair as best as I could with no proper light, no electrocautery no retractors and no ability to stent my freshly re-implanted ureter.   All of this on an HIV+ve new mother.   I hope it heals open.  I am not sure if it will.   I have come to understand that ureteral injuries are a not uncommon consequence of obstetrical care in Malawi.

My third patient had a TURP which was fairly straightforward.   He should hopefully void assuming reasonable residual bladder function.  He has had a catheter in place for months.

At least we did do some work Thursday.  On Tuesday my four patient list turned into one as my anesthetist did not attend.  Before surgical care can be improved, the critical shortage of anesthesia care has to also be addressed. I also wrote about that earlier.

I did bring a surgery checklist to ZCH on Tuesday.

1.6

And Thursday in follow up, I gave a talk to the surgical team about checklists and so that is certainly good.

1.7

They keep asking me to see men in the clinic with catheters.  With the inefficiencies of late start times, anesthesia shortages and only a week to go, most will get left behind.  It is really a depressing thought.

My OR team though is there to help and keen to learn.

1.8

Daniel, Rex (T Rex) and Maryeuster

As I reflect on my experience in the operating room during week one I am struck by how discordant what I saw in San Diego was from the realities still faced in much of the world.  Basic endoscopic equipment does not exist. Serendipitously, a retired colleague of mine did bring some basic equipment a few months ago and this one set, washed and then resterilized (in a pail of chlorinated water) is all that we have.   I am still not clear what happens when the loops wear out.

1.9

I do question when we pull millions of dollars and much intellectual capital into improving technology and chasing robots as to what are we really doing to benefit the care of our urological patients on a global scale. Do we have some obligation as champions of mens’ health and urologic care more broadly, to play a part?  I do wonder whether some of our intellectual energy and financial resources could be better spent simply bringing parts of this world even into the 1970s. If this was valued as worthy of academic support and promotion the way oncology, endourology and everything else is in our specialty is, then some of the bright young minds in our field might move this along further.  Whether we do a robot prostatectomy retroperitoneally or intraperitoneally, debate about a Rocco stitch or tweak this or do that, these changes are often incremental at best. Supine versus prone PCNL?  Who cares.  Other parts of the world I think deserve some of our high-level expertise to meet their complex challenges. I would invite the urological community to try and collectively address this problem. Should we keep pouring all of our massive resources only to steady, incremental benefit?  Clearly we always must advance the body of knowledge and the state of the art.  However, is there a role for reserving some resource and energy to advocate for simpler things that could affect a change on the order of several magnitudes?  Some of the easier things we might do is to at least act as advocates and lead some process change whether it be a surgical checklist, counting instruments and sutures pre and post operatively and ensure better preoperative screening and post-operative care.   Updating equipment and building surgical expertise necessarily follows.

Laser TURP?  Plasma button?  Urolift?   The men in Malawi and much of Africa would be happy just to get rid of their catheters.

We often joke about our ‘first world problems’.  It’s time to get serious.

Let’s do better.

Dr Rajiv Singal is a Urologist at Michael Garron Hospital and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Toronto

Follow him on Twitter at @DrRKSingal

To read more about Dr Singal’s experience in Malawi follow this link https://www.rajivsingal.com/blogCategories/view/malawi-june-2016/

 

 

 

The PROMIS of MRI

/1 Comment/by

Hashim AhmedThe prostate cancer pathway is controversial and views are often polarized. For a researcher, this is the perfect melting pot for innovation and practice-changing studies. It is clear that we need to reduce the harms of treatment, not only by treating very few low-risk cancers but also by innovations in surgery. It is pleasing to see Grasso et al. [1] systematic review of surgical innovation that may potentially lead to improvements in urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. This was a diligently conducted systematic review and points to the need for a randomized trial, which the authors tell us is currently being conducted.

The era of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis is upon us. Few of us will live through such a wholesale change in the entire pathway for diagnosis and treatment of a cancer, and a common one at that. Whilst a few of us have been using mpMRI prior to first biopsy, there can be no doubting that we now have level 1b evidence to support the adoption of mpMRI prior to a first prostate biopsy as the standard care. The NIHR-HTA/MRC-CTU/UCL PROstate MR Imaging Study (or PROMIS) has been long awaited, and its initial results were presented at ASCO last month [2]. mpMRI performed better than expectations in a multicentre setting across 11 NHS trusts and just over a dozen radiologists. Sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 88–96) and the negative predictive value was 89% (95% CI 83–94). Although the focus, quite rightly, has been on mpMRI, equally significant has been the discovery of how bad a test TRUS-guided biopsy really was, with a sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer of only 48% (95% CI 42–55).

These findings answer several criticisms of mpMRI. First, that it is not as accurate as retrospective data suggest. It is, provided you do not expect it to find every millimetre of significant disease. Second, it is not reproducible outside of expert centres. It is, provided you quality assure every scanner, optimize the sequences iteratively, quality control scans and have robust training for radiologists. Third, it cannot be carried out on 1.5-Tesla scanners. It can; all the PROMIS scans were 1.5 Tesla without an endorectal coil. Fourth, it misses lots of clinically significant prostate cancers. It does not, but this depends on your definition of clinical significance. In this respect, the study by Cash et al. [3] is pertinent. They evaluated the rates of subsequent cancer found on ‘negative’ mpMRIs and, using the very conservative Epstein definition, found a high rate of missed ‘significant’ cancers. The rate of Gleason 7 disease missed was lower and some missed cancers were attributable to interobserver variability in mpMRI reporting. All centres should evaluate their own data to determine where their own negative predictive value sits and then strive to improve upon this through a constant iterative dialogue between urology and radiology. PROMIS shows that mpMRI has very high performance characteristics that should be possible across the board.

There is considerable work still to be done. Cost-effectiveness analyses are under way; with these data, NICE will need to consider their clinical recommendations, having laboured the point that they wished to await PROMIS. The challenge of dissemination and maintenance of quality standards is not to be underestimated. Work on determining what is out there, who is capable of performing such scans and reporting them, whether there is enough capacity in the NHS and whether all centres are capable of carrying out targeted biopsies are all legitimate health policy issues.

Similar to mammography standards laid down centrally, we will need to insist on: independent (not self-) accreditation; independent scan and report audits, with outliers (too many negatives, too many positives, too many equivocals) reviewed to determine whether further standardization training is required; rates of clinically significant and insignificant cancers detected on subsequent biopsy; rates of repeat biopsies; and rates of unnecessary radical therapy on low risk cases. We should all look within our centres to ensure we can meet these expectations.

 

Hashim U. Ahmed, BJUI Consulting Editor – Imaging Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, UCL, and
Department of Urology, UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

References

1. Grasso AAC, Mistretta FA, Sandri M et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2016; 118: 20–34 Wiley Online Library

2. Ahmed HU. The PROMIS study: a paired-cohort, blinded confirmatory study evaluating the accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in men with an elevated PSA. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: (suppl; abstr 5000)

3. Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A et al. Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016; 118: 35–43 Wiley Online Library

 

BJUI’s Impact Factor rises to 4.387

/3 Comments/by

BJUI-IF-slider

BJUI’s Impact Factor has once again increased, with a steep rise this year to 4.387! The journal has also climbed in to the top 10 for Nephrology and Urology journals.

Editor-in-Chief Prokar Dasgupta and the BJUI Editorial Team would like to thank our readers, authors and reviewers for their dedication and hard work in helping to make this happen.

Congratulations to all those involved.

IF-graph

 

 

Consensus guidelines for reporting prostate cancer Gleason Grade

/by

Prokar_v2The International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) has endorsed modifications to the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer [1]. Five Grade Groups have been defined with tumors of Grade Group 1 being the least aggressive and having the lowest likelihood of progression, whereas those of Grade Group 5 have the highest likelihood of early systemic spread. This new system provides clearer guidance for pathologists to classify cancers on the basis of gland morphology, and it aligns better with contemporary management including active surveillance.

The editors of the major uro-oncology journals believe this is a helpful change for clinicians, researchers, and patients alike and are eager to help this system establish itself in the reporting of pathologic grade. To that end we are now asking investigators to use the new system in the reporting of prostate cancers in their publications. As the Grade Groups correspond to current Gleason scores 6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, 9 and 10, the translation should be relatively simple. Over the next one to two years, side-by-side reporting of old and new histology may temporarily be necessary. We do recognize that some institutional and national databases are not set up to make the translation and exceptions will be granted in these cases.

Anthony Zietman, Editor-in-Chief*, Joseph Smith, Editor†, Eric Klein , Editor-in-Chief‡, Michael Droller, Editor-in-Chief§, Prokar Dasgupta, Editor-in-Chief¶ and James Catto, Editor-in-Chief**

 

*International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, †Journal of Urology, ‡Urology, §Urologic Oncology, BJUI and **European Urology

Reference

1 Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244–52

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.