Handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP)

Lopez‐Beltran A, Algaba F, Berney D M, Boccon‐Gibod L, Camparo P, Griffiths D, Mikuz G, Montironi R, Varma M & Egevad L (2011) Histopathology 58, 579–585 Handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder in Europe: a web‐based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) Aims: To collect of information about European practices on handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder. Methods and results: The European Network of Uropathology is a communication network that includes 335 pathology laboratories in 15 western European countries. A web‐based questionnaire was answered by 52.2% of members. Some routines were adopted by a majority: formalin fixation (92.5%), separate containers for tumour and resection base (72%) and embedding of the entire specimen (60%). Cancer along/in adipose tissue would be reported as pT3a by 19.5% and non‐invasive urothelial carcinoma in prostatic ducts/glands as pT4a by 16.1%. Papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential is recognized by 72.6% but rarely reported. Immunohistochemistry is rarely or sometimes used for diagnosing bladder cancer by 91.7%, and the most frequently used markers are CK20 (76.9%), CK7 (66.7%) and Ki67 (38.8%). Only 24.8% report prognostic markers, with Ki67 (84.4%) and p53 (64.4%) being most common. Only 50.9% use the International Society of Urological Pathology 1998/World Health Organization (WHO) 2004 grading system, followed by WHO 1973 (43.4%) and WHO 1999 (31.4%). Conclusions: There is still variability in routine practice and a need for standardization of methodologies. These results may be helpful when judging what recommendations are reasonable to issue.