| Affiliation: | (1) School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylul University, 35340 Inciralti Izmir, Turkey;(2) School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Adnan Menderes University, Turkey;(3) School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Pamukkale University, Turkey;(4) School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Celal Bayar University, Turkey;(5) School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Ege University, Turkey;(6) School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey |
| Abstract: | Objectives This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Classification of Urothelial Neoplasms (1998 WHO/ISUP classification) and the 1973 WHO classification.Methods A teaching set with 5 slides of each papillary neoplasm of low malignant potential, low-grade papillary carcinoma, high-grade papillary carcinoma, and a guideline, as well as a study set of 30 slides containing ten cases of each category, were sent to participants. Six pathologists expert in urological pathology reviewed the 30 slides of non-invasive papillary urothelial tumors in the study set. Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility were evaluated using intra- and inter-rater techniques (kappa statistic).Results A moderate to substantial intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was achieved for both the 1998 WHO/ISUP and 1973 WHO classification. The results of the two classification systems were not different statistically (P>0.05). Reproducibility was lower in low-grade tumors for both classifications.Conclusions The new proposed classification system for non-invasive urothelial neoplasms does not increase the reproducibility. There is still a need for uniformity in grading in order to compare the different studies and therapies and to provide more accurate information for management. |
