Home Forums All Categories Articles of Interest The role of CORRECT pathology in BLC

  • mmc's avatar

    mmc

    Member
    February 2, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Second review of transurethral bladder tumor resection specimens shows differences of interpretation in 26.7% to 33.3% of cases, which is sufficient to alter management. There was no significant difference in the rate of discrepancies before and after genitourinary pathology subspecialization. Referral centers must assume responsibility for establishing the diagnosis before consultation and/or therapy.

    Wow! Wish I was one of the patients they mention that was diagnosed but wound up not being CIS. :) Just think about going through treatment when you didn’t even have it! YIKES.

    For all you new folks….PLEASE pay attention to this stuff. It’s REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important to get a 2nd opinion at a MAJOR BLADDER CANCER CENTER. They are the ones with the top pathologists as well.

    Mike


    Age 54
    10/31/06 dx CIS (TisG3) non-invasive (at 47)
    9/19/08 TURB/TUIP dx Invasive T2G3
    10/8/08 RC neobladder(at 49)
    2/15/13 T4G3N3M1 distant metastases(at 53)
    9/2013 finished chemo -cancer free again
    1/2014 ct scan results….distant mets
    2/2014 ct result…spread to liver, kidneys, and lymph system

    My opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of ABLCS or anyone else. I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV.
  • pemquid's avatar

    pemquid

    Member
    February 2, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Pat–

    Thanks for posting. I subscribe to uro today so had already read that articles — it is indeed quite eye-opening to have the need for second opinion so strongly confirmed.

    Ann


    Small TA Grade 1, May-06; recur (2 tiny), same, June-08; TURBTs both times. BCG begun July-08, dosage to 1/3rd May-10, completed treatment December-11. All clear since 2008.

Sign In to reply.