International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Current Issues in Bladder Cancer. Working Group 2
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The 2022 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Urinary Bladder Cancer Working Group 2 was tasked to provide evidence-based proposals on the applications of grading in noninvasive urothelial carcinoma with mixed grades, invasive urothelial carcinoma including subtypes (variants) and divergent differentiations, and in pure non-urothelial carcinomas. Studies suggested that predominantly low-grade noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal high-grade component has intermediate outcome between low- and high-grade tumors. However, no consensus was reached on how to define a focal high-grade component. By 2004 WHO grading, the vast majority of lamina propria-invasive (T1) urothelial carcinomas are high-grade, and the rare invasive low-grade tumors show only limited superficial invasion. While by 1973 WHO grading, the vast majority of T1 urothelial carcinomas are G2 and G3 and show significant differences in outcome based on tumor grade. No consensus was reached if T1 tumors should be graded either by the 2004 WHO system or by the 1973 WHO system. Because of the concern for underdiagnosis and underreporting with potential undertreatment, participants unanimously recommended that the presence of urothelial carcinoma subtypes and divergent differentiations should be reported. There was consensus that the extent of these subtypes and divergent differentiations should also be documented in biopsy, transurethral resection, and cystectomy specimens. Any distinct subtype and divergent differentiation should be diagnosed without a threshold cutoff, and each type should be enumerated in tumors with combined morphologies. The participants agreed that all subtypes and divergent differentiations should be considered high-grade according to the 2004 WHO grading system. However, participants strongly acknowledged that subtypes and divergent differentiations should not be considered as a homogenous group in terms of behavior. Thus, future studies should focus on individual subtypes and divergent differentiations rather than lumping these different entities into a single clinicopathological group. Likewise, clinical recommendations should pay attention to the potential heterogeneity of subtypes and divergent differentiations in terms of behavior and response to therapy. There was consensus that invasive pure squamous cell carcinoma and pure adenocarcinoma of the bladder should be graded according to the degree of differentiation. In conclusion, this summary of the International Society of Urological Pathology Working Group 2 proceedings addresses some of the issues on grading beyond its traditional application, including for papillary urothelial carcinomas with mixed grades and with invasive components. Reporting of subtypes and divergent differentiation is also addressed in detail, acknowledging their role in risk stratification. This report could serve as a guide for best practices and may advise future research and proposals on the prognostication of these tumors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».