813 860
these equivalent to ‘high-risk’ non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer?
Urol Int 2014;92:136–42.
[19]
Nishiyama N, Kitamura H, Maeda T, et al. Clinicopathological analysis of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: prognostic value and clinical reliability of the 2004 WHO classifi- cation system. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013;43:1124–31.[20]
Chen Z, Ding W, Xu K, et al. The 1973 WHO Classification is more suitable than the 2004 WHO classification for predicting prog- nosis in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PLoS One 2012;7: e47199.[21]
Pellucchi F, Freschi M, Ibrahim B, et al. Clinical reliability of the 2004 WHO histological classification system compared with the 1973 WHO system for Ta primary bladder tumors. J Urol 2011;186: 2194–9.
[22]
Pellucchi F, Freschi M, Moschini M, et al. Oncological predictive value of the 2004 World Health Organisation grading classification in primary T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. A step forward or back? BJU Int 2015;115:267–73.[23]
Otto W, Denzinger S, Fritsche HM, et al. The WHO classification of 1973 is more suitable than the WHO classification of 2004 for predicting survival in pT1 urothelial bladder cancer. BJU Int 2011;107:404–8.[24]
Ishida R, Tsuzuki T, Yoshida S, et al. Clinicopathological study of the 1973 who classification and the WHO/ISUP classification in pTa bladder carcinoma. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 2010;101: 609–14.[25]
van Rhijn BW, van der Kwast TH, Kakiashvili DM, et al. Pathological stage review is indicated in primary pT1 bladder cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:206–11.
[26]
Burger M, Denzinger S, Wieland WF, et al. Does the current World Health Organization classification predict the outcome better in patients with noninvasive bladder cancer of early or regular onset? BJU Int 2008;102:194–7.
[27]
Burger M, van der Aa MN, van Oers JM, et al. Prediction of progres- sion of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer by WHO 1973 and 2004 grading and by FGFR3 mutation status: a prospective study. Eur Urol 2008;54:835–43.[28]
Schned AR, Andrew AS, Marsit CJ, et al. Survival following the diagnosis of noninvasive bladder cancer: WHO/International Society of Urological Pathology versus WHO classification systems. J Urol 2007;178:1196–200.[29]
Kamel MH, Daly PJ, Khan MF, et al. Survival and progression in high grade tumour subset of G2 and G3 pT1 bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:1139–43.
[30]
Yin H, Leong AS. Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial tumors: validation of the 1998 WHO/ISUP system by immunophenotyping and follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121: 679–87.[31]
Oosterhuis JW, Schapers RF, Janssen-Heijnen ML, et al. Histological grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: prognostic value of the 1998 WHO/ISUP classification system and comparison with conventional grading systems. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:900–5.[32]
Samaratunga H, Makarov DV, Epstein JI. Comparison of WHO/ISUP and WHO classification of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms for risk of progression. Urology 2002;60:315–9.[33]
May M, Brookman-Amissah S, Roigas J, et al. Prognostic accuracy of individual uropathologists in noninvasive urinary bladder carcino- ma: a multicentre study comparing the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation classifications. Eur Urol 2010;57:850–8.
[34]
vanRhijnBW, MusqueraM, LiuL, et al. Molecular andclinical support for a four-tieredgradingsystemfor bladdercancerbasedon theWHO 1973 and 2004 classifications. Mod Pathol 2015;28:695–705.[35]
Epstein JI. The new World Health Organization/International Soci- ety of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) classification for TA, T1 bladder tumors: is it an improvement? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003;47:83–9.[36]
MacLennan GT, Kirkali Z, Cheng L. Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial neoplasms. Eur Urol 2007;51:889–97.[37]
Gonzalez-Campora G, Davalos-Casanova A, Beato-Moreno RJ, et al. Apoptotic and proliferation indexes in primary superficial bladder tumors. Cancer Lett 2006;242:266–72.
[38]
Pauwels RF, Schapers AW, Smeets FM, et al. Grading in superficial bladder cancer. Morphological criteria. Br J Urol 1988;61:129–34.
[39]
Liedberg F, Lauss M, Patschan O, et al. The importance of being grade 3: WHO 1999 versus WHO 2004 pathologic grading. Eur Urol 2012;62:620–3.[40]
Lokeshwar SD, Ruiz-Cordero R, Hupe MC, et al. Impact of 2004 ISUP/ WHO classification on bladder cancer grading. World J Urol 2015;33: 1929–36.
[41]
Engers R. Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms. World J Urol 2007;25:595–605.[42]
Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, et al. 2004 World Health Organization classification of the noninvasive urothelial neo- plasms: inherent problems and clinical reflections. Eur Urol Suppl 2009;8:453–7.[43]
Mikulowski P, Hellsten S. T1 G1 urinary bladder carcinoma: fact or fiction? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005;39:135–7.E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 0 1 – 8 1 3
813