A single-center retrospective comparison of pT1 substaging methods in bladder cancer

Abstract

AbstractSubstaging of T1 urothelial cancer is associated with tumor progression and its reporting is recommended by international guidelines. However, it has not been integrated in risk stratification tools and there is no agreement on the best method to use for its reporting. We aimed to investigate the applicability, interobserver variability, and prognostic value of histological landmark based and micrometric (aggregate linear length of invasive carcinoma (ALLICA), microscopic vs. extensive system, Rete Oncologica Lombarda (ROL) system) substaging methods. A total of 79 patients with the primary diagnosis of T1 urothelial cancer treated with conventional transurethral resection and adjuvant BCG therapy between 2000 and 2020 at the Medical University of Vienna were included. The anatomical and metrical substaging systems were evaluated using agreement rate, Cohen’s kappa, Kendall’s tau, and Spearman rank correlation. Prognostic value for high-grade recurrence or T2 progression was evaluated in uni- and multivariable analysis. Applicability and reproducibility were good to moderate and varied between substaging methods. Obstacles are mainly due to fragmentation of samples. Anatomical substaging was associated with progression in univariable and multivariable analysis. In our cohort, we could only identify anatomical landmark–based substaging to be prognostic for T2 progression. A major obstacle for proper pathological assessment is fragmentation of samples due to operational procedure. Avoiding such fragmentation might improve reproducibility and significance of pathological T1 substaging of urothelial cancer.