IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0047199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The 1973 WHO Classification Is More Suitable than the 2004 WHO Classification for Predicting Prognosis in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Zhongqing Chen
  • Weihong Ding
  • Ke Xu
  • Jun Tan
  • Chuanyu Sun
  • Yuancheng Gou
  • Shijun Tong
  • Guowei Xia
  • Zujun Fang
  • Qiang Ding

Abstract

Background: Predicting the recurrence and progression of Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer(NMIBC) is critical for urologist. Histological grade provides significant prognostic information, especially for prediction of progression. Currently, the 1973 and the 2004 WHO classification co-exist. Which system is better for predicting rumor recurrence and progression still a matter for debate. Methodology/Principal Findings: 348 patients diagnosed with Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer were enrolled in our retrospective study. Paraffin sections were assessed by an experienced urological pathologist according to both the 1973 and 2004 WHO classifications. Tumor recurrence and progression was followed-up in all patients. During follow-up, corresponding 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of G1, G2 and G3 were 82.1%, 55.9%, 32.1% and the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 95.9%, 84.4% and 43.3%, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP), low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma(LGPUC) and high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (HGPUC) were 69.8%, 67.1% and 42.0% respectively and the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 100%, 90.9% and 54.8% respectively. In multivariate analysis, the 1973 WHO classification significantly associated with both tumor recurrence and progression(p = 0.010 and p = 0.022, respectively); the 2004 WHO classification correlated with tumor progression(p = 0.019), while was not proved to be a variable that can predict the risk of recurrence(p = 0.547). Kaplan-Meier plots showed that both the 1973 WHO and the 2004 WHO classifications were significantly associated with progression-free survival (p

Suggested Citation

  • Zhongqing Chen & Weihong Ding & Ke Xu & Jun Tan & Chuanyu Sun & Yuancheng Gou & Shijun Tong & Guowei Xia & Zujun Fang & Qiang Ding, 2012. "The 1973 WHO Classification Is More Suitable than the 2004 WHO Classification for Predicting Prognosis in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-9, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0047199
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047199
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047199&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0047199?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0047199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.