International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Current Issues in Bladder Cancer. Working Group 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".