Aim: Our aim was to compare the interobserver variability between the 1998 WHO/ISUP and 1973 WHO classifications. Methods: 258 consecutive papillary urothelial carcinomas were reviewed by two pathologists and assigned a tumor grade according to the 1973 WHO and 1998 WHO/ISUP without the knowledge of primary diagnosis and clinical follow-up. All cases were also histologically staged by the two pathologists separately as follows: pTa (noninvasive), pT1 (lamina propria invasion only), pT2 (muscularis propria invasion). Findings of both pathologists and degree of agreement were compared statistically by using Pearson’s χ2 test and ĸ statistics respectively. A ĸ value of 0.21–0.40 is accepted as fair, 0.41–0.60 moderate and 0.61–0.80 substantial agreement. Results: Regardless of the pathologist, tumor grades of two classifications correlated to each other and the pathological stage (p < 0.05). Overall degree of agreement between pathologists was higher in the 1998 WHO/ISUP (ĸ 0.59) than the 1973 WHO (ĸ 0.41), but both were still moderate. Papillary urothelial neoplasia with low malignant potential was the group of 1998 WHO/ISUP that showed the lowest degree of agreement and if excluded, interobserver variability of the 1998 WHO/ISUP decreased significantly (ĸ 0.84). Conclusion: The diagnosis of papillary urothelial neoplasia with low malignant potential and the criteria that differentiates it from low-grade carcinomas needs improvement in order to compare the different studies and therapies and to provide more accurate information for management.

Keywords:
Urothelial neoplasms, Grading of urothelial tumors, Interobserver variability
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.