Validation of World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology 2004 Classification Schema for Bladder Urothelial Carcinomas Using Quantitative Nuclear Morphometry: Identification of Predictive Features Using Bootstrap Method

Urology

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1028-1033

  Kapur, Umesh ^a   Antic, Tatjana ^a   Venkataraman, Girish ^a   Durazo Arvizu, Ramon ^a   Quek, Marcus M ^a   Flanigan, Robert C ^a   Wojcik, Eva M ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER BIOPSY; BLADDER CARCINOMA; BOOTSTRAPPING; CANCER GRADING; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; UROGENITAL TRACT TUMOR; VALIDATION PROCESS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

AGED; CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; CELL NUCLEUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; UROLOGY; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 36549074186     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56 (2006) 106-130
2. Grossman H.B., Soloway M., Messing E., et al. Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 295 (2006) 299-305
3. Sanchini M.A., Gunelli R., Nanni O., et al. Relevance of urine telomerase in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. JAMA 294 (2005) 2052-2056
4. Copp H.L., Chin J.L., Conaway M., et al. Prospective evaluation of the prognostic relevance of molecular staging for urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 107 (2006) 60-66
5. Grossman H.B., Laudadio J., Keane T.E., et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting transitional cell carcinoma: implications for clinical practice. Urol Oncol 24 (2006) 270-271
6. Sarosdy M.F., Schellhammer P., Bokinsky G., et al. Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol 168 (2002) 1950-1954
7. Zellweger T., Benz G., Cathomas G., et al. Multi-target fluorescence in situ hybridization in bladder washings for prediction of recurrent bladder cancer. Int J Cancer 119 (2006) 1660-1665
8. Yorukoglu K., Tuna B., Dikicioglu E., et al. Reproducibility of the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Virchows Arch 443 (2003) 734-740
9. Robertson A.J., Beck J.S., Burnett R.A., et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of transitional cell carcinoma and epithelial dysplasia in bladders. J Clin Pathol 43 (1990) 17-21
10. van Velthoven R., Petein M., Oosterlinck W., et al. Identification by quantitative chromatin pattern analysis of patients at risk for recurrence of superficial transitional bladder carcinoma. J Urol 164 (2000) 2134-2137
11. Sowter C., Slavin G., Sowter G., et al. Morphometry of bladder carcinoma: morphometry and grading complement each other. Anal Cell Pathol 3 (1991) 1-9
12. Lipponen P.K., Eskelinen M.J., and Sotarauta M. Prediction of superficial bladder cancer by histoquantitative methods. Eur J Cancer 26 (1990) 1060-1063
13. Ooms E.C., Kurver P.H., Veldhuizen R.W., et al. Morphometric grading of bladder tumors in comparison with histologic grading by pathologists. Hum Pathol 14 (1983) 144-150
14. Sorensen F.B., Sasaki M., Fukuzawa S., et al. Qualitative and quantitative histopathology in transitional cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder: an international investigation of intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Lab Invest 70 (1994) 242-254
15. Montironi R., Scarpelli M., Ansuini G., et al. Quantitative evaluation of the progressive nuclear abnormalities in urothelial papillary lesions. Appl Pathol 4 (1986) 65-73
16. Henze N., and Zirkler B. A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics, Part A-Theory and Methods 19 (1990) 3595-3617
17. Schumacher M., Hollander N., and Sauerbrei W. Resampling and cross-validation techniques: a tool to reduce bias caused by model building?. Stat Med 16 (1997) 2813-2827
18. Sauerbrei W., and Schumacher M. A bootstrap resampling procedure for model building: application to the Cox regression model. Stat Med 11 (1992) 2093-2109
19. Bol M.G., Baak J.P., Buhr-Wildhagen S., et al. Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 169 (2003) 1291-1294
20. Veltri R.W., Partin A.W., and Miller M.C. Quantitative nuclear grade (QNG): a new image analysis-based biomarker of clinically relevant nuclear structure alterations. J Cell Biochem Suppl 35 (2000) 151-157
21. Martinez-Jabaloyas J.M., Ruiz-Cerda J.L., Hernandez M., et al. Prognostic value of DNA ploidy and nuclear morphometry in prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation. Urology 59 (2002) 715-720
22. Venkataraman G., Ananthanarayanan V., Paner G.P., et al. Morphometric sum optical density as a surrogate marker for ploidy status in prostate cancer: an analysis in 180 biopsies using logistic regression and binary recursive partitioning. Virchows Arch 449 (2006) 302-307
23. Karakitsos P., Pouliakis A., Kordalis G., et al. Potential of radial basis function neural networks in discriminating benign from malignant lesions of the lower urinary tract. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 27 (2005) 35-42
24. Bol M.G., Baak J.P., Rep S., et al. Prognostic value of proliferative activity and nuclear morphometry for progression in TaT1 urothelial cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder. Urology 60 (2002) 1124-1130
25. Ozer E., Yorukoglu K., Mungan M.U., et al. Prognostic significance of nuclear morphometry in superficial bladder cancer. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 23 (2001) 251-256
26. Boon M.E. DNA content of normal and neoplastic urothelial cells: a comparative cytofluorometric and cytomorphologic study. Tumori 66 (1980) 445-458
27. Farsund T., Laerum O.D., and Hostmark J. Ploidy disturbance of normal-appearing bladder mucosa in patients with urothelial cancer: relationship to morphology. J Urol 130 (1983) 1076-1082
28. Sowter C., Sowter G., Slavin G., et al. Morphometry of bladder carcinoma: definition of a new variable. Anal Cell Pathol 2 (1990) 205-213
29. Hanai S., Kishi K., Watanabe S., et al. Morphometry of bladder cancer cells in tissue sections according to histological grade of malignancy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 15 (1985) 671-678
30. Sabo E., Gibrat M., Sova Y., et al. Validation of the novel indices of nuclear pleomorphism, polarity and spatial distribution in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 25 (2003) 53-62
31. Bol M.G., Baak J.P., Janssen E.A., et al. Further testing of morphometric grading in T(A,1) urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder and the additional value of p53 immunoquantitation. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 24 (2002) 114-120