Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.CRUESPUniversidade Estadual de Campinaspt
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt
dc.titleTumor grade heterogeneity in urothelial bladder carcinoma - Proposal of a system using combined numberspt
dc.contributor.authorBillis, Apt
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, RBpt
dc.contributor.authorMattos, ACpt
dc.contributor.authorNegretti, Fpt
dc.contributor.authorNogueira, CRpt
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, MCBMpt
dc.contributor.authorValenca, JTpt
dc.contributor.authorAdam, RLpt
dc.contributor.authorCotta, ACSpt
dc.contributor.authorNunes, MSpt
dc.contributor.authorDinamarco, PVVpt
unicamp.authorUNICAMP, State Univ Campinas, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Campinas, Brazilpt
dc.subjectbladder cancerpt
dc.subjecttumor heterogeneitypt
dc.subjecthistological gradingpt
dc.subjectcombined numberspt
dc.subject.wosTransitional-cell Neoplasmspt
dc.description.abstractObjective: There is no consensus for grading when more than one grade is present in bladder carcinoma. We propose a grading system that considers the primary (most common) and secondary (second most common) grade of bladder cancer. Grade was correlated with stage of the tumors. Material and methods: We studied 293 bladder transurethral resections or radical cystectomies. Grade was considered as 1, 2 or 3 according to the 1999 World Health Organization system. The number was repeated when only one grade was seen. A final score was obtained which ranged from 2 to 6. All cases were also graded according to the highest grade area even if it was focal. Results: According to the highest grade area, the distribution was 80 (74.07%), 27 (25.00%) and 1 (0.92%) for grade 1; 31 (24.03%), 69 (53.48%) and 29 (22.48%) for grade 2; and 0 (0%), 17 (30.35%) and 39 (69.64%) for grade 3, corresponding to the stages Ta, T1 and T2-T3, respectively. Using the system of combined numbers, grade 2 was stratified into subgroups 1 + 2 and 2 + 2 which are statistically different (p < 0.05) when considering stage. In grade 3, there was also a trend for statistical difference (p = 0.066) between grades 2 + 3 and 3 + 3. Conclusions: The grading system of combined numbers, stratifies grade 2 into subgroups 1 + 2 and 2 + 2, and grade 3 into subgroups 2 + 3 and 3 + 3 which are statistically different when considering stage. This grading system of combined numbers takes into consideration tumor heterogeneity and may be of value in prospective studies for analysis of prognosis and therapeutic
dc.relation.ispartofScandinavian Journal Of Urology And Nephrologypt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofabbreviationScand. J. Urol.
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Aspt
dc.identifier.citationScandinavian Journal Of Urology And Nephrology. Taylor & Francis As, v. 35, n. 4, n. 275, n. 279,
dc.sourceWeb of Sciencept
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2014-12-02T16:25:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 WOS000171222700003.pdf: 437898 bytes, checksum: e124a965cfd9ca810ff28af60defe066 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2001en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2015-11-26T16:13:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 WOS000171222700003.pdf: 437898 bytes, checksum: e124a965cfd9ca810ff28af60defe066 (MD5) WOS000171222700003.pdf.txt: 17699 bytes, checksum: 3fab08e036764146ae3fd429f8c7727d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2001en
Appears in Collections:Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
WOS000171222700003.pdf427.63 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.