Aim: To evaluate the correlation of various nuclear morphometric variables with conventional staging categories in patients with urothelial cancer of the urinary bladder. Material and Method: Nuclear morphometry using interactive image analysis system was performed on hematoxylin and eosin stained slides of 39 patients with urothelial cancer of the bladder. Thirteen patients were classified as Ta, N₀, M₀, 5 as T1, N₀, M₀, 13 patients had invasive disease (T ≥ 2, N₀, M₀), and 8 had pelvic lymph node involvement or distant metastases. Results: Univariate analysis demonstrated 19 out of 25 morphometric variables to show statistically significant difference between superficial disease (Ta, T1) and invasive disease (T ≥ 2, N+). Standard deviation of heterogeneity, standard deviation of polygonal area and standard deviation of angle were found to be highly significant stage predictors on multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristics analysis based on this variables revealed that the best cut point of the discriminate score was –0.5 for distinguishing between superficial (Ta, T1) and invasive disease (T ≥ 2, N+). The sensitivity of the test is 90.5% and the specificity is 88.9%. Only 2 variables demonstrate statistically significant difference between locally advanced and metastatic disease in univariate analysis, none of them were significant in the multivariate model. Conclusion: Nuclear morphometry enables objective and quantitative differentiation between superficial and invasive bladder cancer. Comparison between invasive (T ≥ 2) and nodal involvement (N+) and/or metastatic disease revealed no significant differences, suggesting that they might be biologically one entity.

Keywords:
Bladder cancer, Staging, Nuclear morphometry
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.