Morphologic, Prognostic, and Predictive Factors and Reporting of Bladder Cancer



Morphologic, Prognostic, and Predictive Factors and Reporting of Bladder Cancer





The traditional morphologic, prognostic, and predictive factors for bladder cancer vary according to the type of bladder cancer presentation in the patient: noninvasive papillary tumors, primary urothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS), or invasive urothelial carcinoma (1). The prognostic factors are, hence, discussed separately for each category and are summarized in Table 7.1. Additionally, clinical parameters (e.g., comorbid disease) as well as clinical features (initial response and duration of response to intravesical BCG, increased frequency of recurrence, and short interval between recurrences), patient age, and sex (female) influence progression in grade and stage (2).

There are several molecular and chromosomal markers (e.g., loss of chromosome 9, loss of material on chromosome 17, p53, retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene status, cell cycle regulation markers including p21 and cell adhesion, angiogenesis and cell migration-related markers such as E-cadherin, vascular endothelial growth factor, etc.) that are likely to complement traditional morphologic markers in the future, but these are not routinely used in current surgical pathology practice (3, 4, 5). A more comprehensive review of the molecular taxonomy of bladder cancer is reviewed below, including its potential clinical relevance. Since the understanding of molecular underpinnings of bladder cancer and its various clinicopathologic manifestations and pathways (papillary, muscle invasive, CIS) have a significant potential impact in prognosticating bladder cancer at the individualized level and for choosing appropriate therapy, we have provided a high-level summary of the molecular pathology of bladder cancer as potentially relevant to clinical practice.









TABLE 7.1 Adverse Morphologic Prognostic and Predictive Factors of Bladder Cancer















Noninvasive papillary tumors


High histologic grade


Large tumor size


Multifocality (number of tumors)


Associated CIS


Bladder neck involvement (emerging)


Prior recurrence


Female sex


Urothelial CIS


Multifocality (number of tumors)


Not Primary (de novo)


Female sex


Failure to respond to typical therapy


Involvement of prostatic urethra


Invasive urothelial carcinoma


Increased depth of invasion in bladder wall (pT stage)


Lymph node involvement (pN stage)


Involvement of prostate gland and seminal vesicles


Aggressive histologic variants


Increased histologic grade


Vascular-lymphatic invasion


Positive surgical margins


Multifocality and CIS of urethra or ureters


Increased time from diagnosis to surgery (controversial)


Age >65 y


Female sex



NONINVASIVE PAPILLARY TUMORS


Histologic Grade

Histologic grade is a powerful prognostic factor for recurrence and progression in noninvasive tumors. Urothelial papilloma has the lowest risk for either recurrence or progression, whereas papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential has a risk for recurrence but still has a low risk for progression. Invasion is not seen in association with these tumors, and patients with papilloma and neoplasms of low malignant potential have essentially a normal age-related life expectancy (see Chapter 3). Risk of progression in
grade, stage, and mortality increases from low-grade carcinomas to highgrade carcinomas. High-grade disease is a stratifier for management and therapeutic decisions in the recent NCCN guidelines for noninvasive tumors (6). Glandular differentiation may occasionally occur in noninvasive tumors, and approximately 50% of these patients develop invasive carcinoma, although the invasive component is unlikely to be adenocarcinoma (2, 7, 8).


Size of Tumor

Large tumors (often greater than 3 cm) are at an increased risk for recurrence and progression (9, 10, 11, 12).


Multifocality and Number of Tumors

Patients with multifocal tumors in the bladder and involving other regions of the urothelial tract (ureters and urethra) are at increased risk for recurrence, progression, or death due to disease (10, 13, 14). The number of tumors has been shown to correlate with higher risk of recurrence (8, 11, 15).


Clinical Parameters

Clinical history of prior recurrence and female sex has been associated with bladder cancer recurrence in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (15).


Urothelial Carcinoma In Situ in Nonpapillary Mucosa

Although the impact of the presence of dysplasia in the nonpapillary urothelium is controversial as a prognostic factor and at best may represent a marker of urothelial instability, the presence of urothelial CIS is a known adverse prognostic factor in terms of recurrence and progression (16, 17).


UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA IN SITU

Patients with primary (de novo) CIS are more likely to have no evidence of disease (62% vs. 45%) and are less likely to progress (28% vs. 59%) or die of disease (7% vs. 45%) as compared to patients who have CIS in association with high-grade papillary carcinoma (18), although the data are not conclusive. Patients with CIS often respond to intravesical installation of BCG, but virtually, all will experience tumor recurrence over time. Patients with multifocal disease, those with involvement of the prostatic urethra, and those who fail to respond to intravesical therapy have a worse outcome (1, 16, 17, 19, 20). Patients with CIS are also at a significant risk to develop metachronous upper tract urothelial carcinoma with potential for aggressive behavior, high risk of recurrence, and death from cancer after nephroureterectomy such that surveillance of the upper tract and lower tract in the setting of bladder CIS is recommended (8).


INVASIVE UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA


Depth of Invasion in Bladder Wall

Once a urothelial carcinoma is invasive, the most seminal prognostic factor is the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union against Cancer pathologic stage (21) (Table 7.2). The pT system of staging has excellent

correlation with prognosis and distinguishes distinct prognostic groups. Tumors invasive into the lamina propria (pT1) have a better survival than tumors invasive into the muscularis propria (pT2), with poor survival for tumors with extravesicular extension (pT3, pT4) (1, 22, 23, 24). Although substaging of urothelial tumors (pTla-tumors invasive up to muscularis mucosae, pTlb-tumors invasive into or beyond muscularis mucosae) has shown prognostic value, it is currently not recommended because it may not always be possible to substage pT1 tumors due to the absence of muscularis mucosae in some bladders or because of a lack of orientation in transurethral resection specimens precluding orientation (4). Chapter 5 outlines the diagnostic criteria, pitfalls, and reporting recommendations for pT1 disease. In T1 disease, several substaging strategies have been proposed to improve outcome prediction (25, 26, 27) but have been difficult to adopt due in part to the inherent lack of orientation of the specimen. One strategy separates T1 disease into that above the muscularis mucosae (T1a), below the muscularis mucosae but above the venous plexus (T1b), and beyond the venous plexus (T1c) or separates microinvasive (T1m) disease from more deeply invasive disease (T1e) (25, 28). Whereas T1a and T1b corresponded to a 5-year survival rate of 75%, T1c disease was associated with a 5-year survival rate of only 11% (29). A second strategy separates superficial from deep lamina propria invasion into T1a and T1b categories, respectively, with T1b showing higher rates of progression (58% vs. 36%) and death from disease (46% vs. 23%) than T1a (30). Finally, the depth of invasion, a maximum diameter of invasive carcinoma of less than 1 high-power field versus ≥1 high-power fields (irrespective of direction), and a cutoff of 1 mm maximum invasive diameter have all been shown to be associated with prognosis (31). Based on the available data, it is recommended to provide an assessment of the depth and/or extent of subepithelial tissue invasion in T1 cases.








TABLE 7.2 American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System for Bladder Cancer (2009)


















































































































































Primary tumor (T)a


TX


Primary tumor cannot be assessed


T0


No evidence of primary tumor


Ta


Noninvasive papillary carcinoma


Tis


CIS: “flat tumor”


T1


Tumor invades subepithelial connective tissue


T2


Tumor invades muscularis propria



T2a


Tumor invades superficial muscularis propria (inner half)



T2b


Tumor invades deep muscularis propria (outer half)


T3


Tumor invades perivesical tissue



T3a


Microscopically



T3b


Macroscopically (extravesicular mass)


T4


Tumor invades any of the following: prostatic stroma, seminal vesicles, uterus, vagina, pelvic wall, or abdominal wall



T4a


Tumor invades prostatic stroma, uterus, or vagina



T4b


Tumor invades pelvic wall or abdominal wall


Regional lymph nodes (N)


Regional lymph nodes are those within the true pelvis; all others are distant nodes


NX


Lymph nodes cannot be assessed


N0


No lymph node metastasis


N1


Single regional lymph node metastasis in the true pelvis (hypogastric, obturator, external iliac, or presacral lymph node)


N2


Multiple regional lymph node metastasis in the true pelvis (hypogastric, obturator, external iliac, or presacral lymph node)


N3


Lymph node metastasis to the common iliac lymph nodes


Distant metastasis (M)


M0


No distant metastasis


M1


Distant metastasis


TNM stage grouping: bladder


Stage 0a


Ta


N0


M0


Stage 0is


Tis


N0


M0


Stage I


T1


N0


M0


Stage II


T2a


N0


M0




T2b


N0


M0


Stage III


T3a


N0


M0




T3b


N0


M0


Stage IV


T4a


N0


M0




T4b


N0


M0




Any T


N 1,2,3


M0




Any T


Any N


M1


a The suffix “m” should be added to the appropriate T category to indicate multiple tumors. The suffix “is” may be added to any T to indicate the presence of associated carcinoma in situ.


Reprinted from Urinary Bladder. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 18, 2016 | Posted by in ONCOLOGY | Comments Off on Morphologic, Prognostic, and Predictive Factors and Reporting of Bladder Cancer

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access