Aims Inflammation and necrosis have been associated with prognosis in multiple epithelial malignancies. Our objective was to evaluate inflammation and necrosis in a cohort of patients with high-grade urothelial carcinomas of the bladder to determine their association with pathological parameters and their prognostic effect on relapse-free and disease-specific survival.
Methods A retrospective cohort that underwent radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinomas (n=235) was evaluated for invasive front and central inflammation using the Klintrup-Makinen assessment method. Necrosis was scored using a four-point scale. The relationship of inflammation and necrosis with stage, nodal status, carcinoma in situ, tumour size, margin status and vascular space invasion and the impact on relapse-free and disease-specific survival were calculated using appropriate statistical tests.
Results On multivariate analysis, invasive front inflammation (p=0.003) and necrosis (p=0.000) were independent predictors of relapse-free survival. Both invasive front inflammation (p=0.009) and necrosis (p=0.002) again were independent predictors of disease-specific survival. For pathological features, low invasive front inflammation was associated with lymphovascular space invasion (p=0.008), a positive soft tissue margin (p=0.028) and carcinoma in situ (p=0.042). Necrosis was statistically associated with tumours >3 cm in size (p=0.013) and carcinoma in situ (p<0.001).
Conclusions Necrosis and invasive front inflammation are additional histological variables with independent prognostic relevance in high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Handling editor Dhirendra Govender.
Contributors AH: data collection and interpretation, authored manuscript. BX: study design, statistical analysis, authored manuscript. RS: study design, data collection, authored manuscript. MRD: study design, data collection and interpretation, authored manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.