Head-to-head: how many categories for grading urothelial carcinoma?

Tumour grade is a critical prognostic parameter for guiding the management of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. In 2004, the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted a binary (low-grade/high-grade) grading system to replace the three-tier (grades 1-3) system used to grade urothelial carcinoma since 1973. However, there is significant global variation in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Some pathology and clinical guidelines recommend reporting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grades in parallel, while others require reporting only of the WHO 2004 grade. This variation in pathology practice is clinically significant, because the two grading systems are not readily translatable. Some experts have proposed novel systems for grading urothelial carcinoma that involve splitting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grade categories. The arguments for and against splitting urothelial carcinomas into two-, three- and four-grade categories are independently discussed by the three authors. Urothelial carcinoma grading is subject to significant global variation. Some guidelines recommend reporting WHO 1973 and WHO grades, while others require reporting only WHO 2004. In this issue, Drs Varma, Comperat and van der Kwast discuss the arguments for and against splitting urothelial carcinomas into two-, three- and four-grade categories.image

Automated summary

The grading of urothelial carcinoma varies globally, with different guidelines recommending different reporting methods. Some experts propose novel grading systems for urothelial carcinoma. This article discusses the arguments for and against splitting urothelial carcinomas into different grade categories.