Advanced

T1 G1 urinary bladder carcinoma: Fact or fiction?

Mikulowski, P and Hellsten, Sverker LU (2005) In Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology1967-01-01+01:002013-01-01+01:00 39(2). p.135-137
Abstract
Objectives. To record the occurrence of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported as T1 G1 to the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Registry, to review the staging and grading of the carcinomas and to scrutinize the validity of the data on T1 G1 tumours reported to the registry during the period 1997-2000. Material and methods. The primary histopathological diagnoses of 98 cases of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported to the Registry were compared with the data delivered by the local urologists. Also, the histopathology slides were obtained from the local laboratories and re-examined. Results. Fifty-five cases had been erroneously reported to the Registry as T1 tumours by the urologists, even though they were clearly described... (More)
Objectives. To record the occurrence of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported as T1 G1 to the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Registry, to review the staging and grading of the carcinomas and to scrutinize the validity of the data on T1 G1 tumours reported to the registry during the period 1997-2000. Material and methods. The primary histopathological diagnoses of 98 cases of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported to the Registry were compared with the data delivered by the local urologists. Also, the histopathology slides were obtained from the local laboratories and re-examined. Results. Fifty-five cases had been erroneously reported to the Registry as T1 tumours by the urologists, even though they were clearly described as non-infiltrating G1 tumours by the pathologists. The results of the re-examination of the pathology slides were concordant with the judgements of the local pathologists in only 50% of cases (20 stage T and 29 grade G tumours). Most importantly, the re-evaluation did not reveal a single invasive G1 tumour. Simply by providing the urologists with information about this problem, it was possible to reduce the number of errors in the reports from 27 in 1997 to only five in 2000. Conclusions. Well-differentiated urothelial carcinoma (G1) has no propensity to infiltrate the bladder mucosa. For investigating specific problems the data collected in the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Registry have to be validated. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
review, histopathology, bladder carcinoma, Cancer Registry, Swedish Urinary Bladder
in
Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology1967-01-01+01:002013-01-01+01:00
volume
39
issue
2
pages
135 - 137
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • pmid:16019767
  • wos:000228326200006
  • scopus:18244393770
ISSN
0036-5599
DOI
10.1080/00365590510031219
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
b831082b-2762-4184-854c-cfe1463d679d (old id 896829)
date added to LUP
2008-01-16 14:59:40
date last changed
2017-11-05 04:33:34
@article{b831082b-2762-4184-854c-cfe1463d679d,
  abstract     = {Objectives. To record the occurrence of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported as T1 G1 to the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Registry, to review the staging and grading of the carcinomas and to scrutinize the validity of the data on T1 G1 tumours reported to the registry during the period 1997-2000. Material and methods. The primary histopathological diagnoses of 98 cases of well-differentiated bladder carcinoma reported to the Registry were compared with the data delivered by the local urologists. Also, the histopathology slides were obtained from the local laboratories and re-examined. Results. Fifty-five cases had been erroneously reported to the Registry as T1 tumours by the urologists, even though they were clearly described as non-infiltrating G1 tumours by the pathologists. The results of the re-examination of the pathology slides were concordant with the judgements of the local pathologists in only 50% of cases (20 stage T and 29 grade G tumours). Most importantly, the re-evaluation did not reveal a single invasive G1 tumour. Simply by providing the urologists with information about this problem, it was possible to reduce the number of errors in the reports from 27 in 1997 to only five in 2000. Conclusions. Well-differentiated urothelial carcinoma (G1) has no propensity to infiltrate the bladder mucosa. For investigating specific problems the data collected in the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Registry have to be validated.},
  author       = {Mikulowski, P and Hellsten, Sverker},
  issn         = {0036-5599},
  keyword      = {review,histopathology,bladder carcinoma,Cancer Registry,Swedish Urinary Bladder},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {135--137},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology1967-01-01+01:002013-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {T1 G1 urinary bladder carcinoma: Fact or fiction?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00365590510031219},
  volume       = {39},
  year         = {2005},
}