How do endoscopic bladder tumor resection techniques affect pathology practice? Investigation of the Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Uropathology (ESUP) Section of the EAU


This article was originally published here

World J Urol. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04022-2. Online ahead of print.


OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine how different endoscopic bladder tumor resection techniques affect pathologists’ clinical practice patterns.

METHODS: An online survey comprising 28 questions grouped into four main sections was prepared by the ESUT ERBT Working Group and disseminated to pathologists working in the expert institutions of the ESUT Board and Working Groups and experts from the uropathology working group. A descriptive analysis was carried out using the data collected.

RESULTS: Sixty-eight pathologists from 23 countries responded to the survey. 37.3% of participants reported always reporting the T1 substage. Of those who gave substages, 61.3% used T1a,b. 85.2% think block samples provide spatial orientation faster than piecemeal samples, and 60% think block samples save time during an inspection. 55.7% said that whether the fabric swatch is bulk or piecemeal is critical. 57.4% believe bulk sampling reduces turnaround times and is cost effective for 44.1%. Many pathologists find pathological examination of fragmentary specimens to have a longer learning curve.

CONCLUSION: The survey shows that pathologists believe they can diagnose more quickly, accurately, and cost-effectively with ERBT specimens, but they do not often encounter them in practice. Additionally, block specimens may be a better choice in pathology residency training. Evidence from real-life observational pathology practice and clinical research can more clearly reveal the current situation and increase awareness of appropriate treatment in the endoscopic management of bladder tumours.

PMID:35567624 | DOI:10.1007/s00345-022-04022-2


About Author

Comments are closed.