skip to Main Content

IMPORTANT: The Bladder Cancer Canada discussion forum is not a substitute for professional medical advice or treatment. The opinions & contents in this forum is for information only and is not reviewed by medical professionals. They are experiences & opinions of patient members like you, and is NOT intended to represent the best or only approach to a situation. Always consult your physician and do not rely solely on the information in this site when making decisions about your health.

Homepage – Forum Forums Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Pathology report on grades

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #31720

    Hi Jack,

    As many of are aware, pathologists in Canada report the grade of BC based upon either 1973 WHO (grade 1,2,3) or WHO 2004 (low grade and high grade).   See the attached comparison chart.

    I do understand that there were so much research done using WHO 1973 grade system and that it is too expensive to replicate the same research using WHO 2004 grade system.   The pathology of my bc was based upon WHO 1973 and I am aware that some other bc patients I know got their pathology report based upon WHO 2004 grade system.   Because of the internet, bc patients can access to many videos, research papers.    Yet, it is confusing as some studies are based upon WHO 1973 grade system and others are based on WHO 2004 grade system.

    Proposal :  Is it possible to request, recommend, encourage, enforce (I know this is not an appropriate way)  pathologists, urologists, oncologists to report grades based upon both WHO 1973 and WHO 2004 grade system.   i.e. WHO 1973 grade 2 / WHO 2004  low grade, or WHO 1973 grade 2 / WHO 2004 high grade.   WHO bc grade system 1973 vs 2004

    Or are there any issues to report in both grade system?

    Jack Moon

    Hi Joey

    Back in 2009 I was told by both a highly regarded Pathologist (also a bladder cancer survivor) and a world renowned Urologist that reporting in both systems could create problems for the Urologists in determining a proper treatment plan for Grade 2.
    Here is a document the Pathologist sent me regarding why the system was changed in 2004.
    • The primary G1 urothelial tumours are
    defined as carcinomas, despite, as a rule,
    not behaving as malignant tumours, not
    metastasising, having a great capacity for
    recurrence but a low potential for progression
    and death.
    • There was a tendency to classify as G1 only
    the very well differentiated tumours, and
    as G3 the very poorly differentiated ones,
    combining into the G2 category all the
    other cases (in some reported series the G2
    tumours represent up to 65% of cases).
    Therefore, tumours with varying degrees of
    differentiation were classified as G2, so that a
    subdivision of such cases into G2A and G2B
    was suggested [9].
    • There was some disagreement between the
    reports by peripheral and referee pathologists
    in multicentre international trials, indicating
    that the assignment of grade was influenced,
    to some degree, by subjective rather than by
    objective criteria.
    For these reasons attempts were made to
    obtain greater reproducible and accuracy
    for the grading of urothelial neoplasms.
    Today recommended treatments for non-muscle invasive is based solely on the 2004 changes for low grade and high grade.
    Wish I could be of more help.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Back To Top