Collaborative Review – Bladder Cancer A Contemporary Update on Pathology Standards for Bladder Cancer: Transurethral Resection and Radical Cystectomy Specimens Donna E. Hansel a, *, Mahul B. Amin b , Eva Comperat c , Richard J. Cote d , Ruth Knu ¨chel e , Rodolfo Montironi f , Victor E. Reuter g , Mark S. Soloway h , Saleem A. Umar d , Theodorus H. Van der Kwast i a Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; b Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Beverly Hills, CA, USA; c Department of Pathology, Hopital La Pitie ´-Salpetriere, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France; d Department of Pathology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; e Department of Pathology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; f Institute of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy; g Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, NY, USA; h Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; i Department of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada EUROPEAN UROLOGY 63 (2013) 321–332 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Article info Article history: Accepted October 5, 2012 Published online ahead of print on October 12, 2012 Keywords: Bladder cancer Pathology Review Standards Abstract Context: Pathology standards for the diagnosis of bladder cancer (BCa) have recently evolved to better reflect patient diagnosis and clinical outcomes. Objective: To update pathology reporting standards for BCa. Evidence acquisition: We searched the international medical literature and reviewed all articles that addressed BCa gross dissection, pathologic diagnosis, staging, and reporting as of June 6, 2012. We also reviewed the proceedings from the recent Second Interna- tional Consultation on Bladder Cancer (Vienna, Austria). The literature selected for review focuses on evidence-based studies that address histopathologic factors in BCa, with emphasis placed on factors that influence patient diagnosis and clinical outcomes. Evidence synthesis: We separated data into three main components for analysis based on the type of specimen obtained: (1) transurethral resection specimens, with an emphasis on pathologic staging, variants of urothelial carcinoma, angiolymphatic invasion, and relevant ancillary techniques such as immunohistochemistry in assessing these features; (2) cystectomy specimens, with an emphasis on pT0 disease, prostatic involvement by urothelial carcinoma and lymph node dissection and analysis; and (3) cytology correlates, with recommendations for the use of cytology paired with tissue-based sampling. Areas of controversy are described and recommendations based on existing guidelines are provided. The value of a multidisciplinary team is highlighted. Conclusions: Ongoing international collaborations amongst pathologists have led to emerging standards in the reporting and microscopic diagnosis of BCa specimens. Although some areas remain controversial, we present the most up-to-date data and guidelines relevant to neoplastic pathology of the urinary bladder. # 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk L25, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Tel. +1 216 444 5893; Fax: +1 216 445 3707. E-mail address: hanseld@ccf.org (D.E. Hansel). 0302-2838/$ – see back matter # 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.008