2007
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2007.049312
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphological diagnosis of urothelial neoplasms: Figure 1

Abstract: The morphological classification and diagnosis of bladder neoplasms is summarised, with specific focus on histological typing, grading and staging. Four diagnostic categories are described on the basis of the pattern of growth of the urothelial lesions and tumours (flat, exophytic or papillary, endophytic, and invasive). The WHO 2004 classification is currently used. However, the WHO 1973 classification is still considered by many urologists and oncologists as the international standard in patient management.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
32
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
3
32
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…If such cells form more than a single layer, the CK20 antigen might be also expressed (46). Both, Ki-67 as well as CK20 staining were useful markers for differentiation between dysplasia on one hand, non-neoplastic hyperplasia and/or reactive urothelium atypia on other hand (42).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If such cells form more than a single layer, the CK20 antigen might be also expressed (46). Both, Ki-67 as well as CK20 staining were useful markers for differentiation between dysplasia on one hand, non-neoplastic hyperplasia and/or reactive urothelium atypia on other hand (42).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). These criteria of dysplasia have been more precisely defi ned (41,42,46,68), since PUNLMP should be distinguished from LG UC on one hand, as well as from urothelium hyperplasia on other hand.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diagnostic errors arose mainly from a lack of clinical information, and a failure to include previous pathology reports and radiographic studies. The diagnostic discordances in interpreting and defining the histotype and grade of urothelial carcinoma often reflected a reluctance to use the newer classification systems; whereas the discordance in tumor stage arose from a poor knowledge of the staging guidelines, inability to identify muscularis propria invasion and the scarce use of the immune markers cytokeratin 7 and 20 [46].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main causes of discordance in the prostate specimens obtained through TURP were problems in assessing the histological grade of intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (PIN) (low-grade vs high-grade PIN; high-grade PIN vs microinvasive PCA), and in assessing the Gleason score histologic grading (Montironi NCPU 2007) [45] (Montironi JCP 2007) [46]. The diagnosis of low-grade PIN should not be reported at all (Bostwick USP 1997) [37], whereas a diagnosis of high-grade PIN suggests that the patient should undergo regular follow-up to detect the possible development of prostate cancer (Bostwick USP 1997) [37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasing size of nuclei, with a globally preserved architecture and increasing cellular density are common. Increasing vascularisation has been described in the submucosa (14,15). Several cases of RA with mitosis have been described.…”
Section: Flat Lesions With Atypiamentioning
confidence: 99%