Abstract:Background Grade of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is an important prognostic factor for progression. Currently, two World Health Organization (WHO) classification systems (WHO1973, categories: grade 1–3, and WHO2004 categories: papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential [PUNLMP], low-grade [LG], high-grade [HG] carcinoma) are used. Objective To ask the European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) members regarding their current practice and preferences of grading systems. Design, setting, and participants A web-based, anonymous questionnaire with ten questions on grading of NMIBC was created. The members of EAU and ISUP were invited to complete an online survey by the end of 2021. Thirteen experts had previously answered the same questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The submitted answers from 214 ISUP members, 191 EAU members, and 13 experts were analyzed. Results and limitations Currently, 53% use only the WHO2004 system and 40% use both systems. According to most respondents, PUNLMP is a rare diagnosis with management similar to Ta-LG carcinoma. The majority (72%) would consider reverting back to WHO1973 if grading criteria were more detailed. Separate reporting of WHO1973-G3 within WHO2004-HG would influence clinical decisions for Ta and/or T1 tumors according the majority (55%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier (41%) or a three-tier (41%) grading system. The current WHO2004 grading system is supported by a minority (20%), whereas nearly half (48%) supported a hybrid three- or four-tier grading system composed of both WHO1973 and WHO2004. The survey results of the experts were comparable with ISUP and EAU respondents. Conclusions Both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 grading system are still widely used. Even though opinions on the future of bladder cancer grading were strongly divided, there was limited support for WHO1973 and WHO2004 in their current formats, while the hybrid (three-tier) grading system with LG, HG-G2, and HG-G3 as categories could be considered the most promising alternative. Patient summary Grading of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a matter of ongoing debate and lacks international consensus. We surveyed urologists and pathologists of European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology on their preferences regarding NMIBC grading to generate a multidisciplinary dialogue. Both the "old" World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 and the "new" WHO2004 grading schemes are still used widely. However, continuation of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 system showed limited support, while a hybrid grading system composed of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 classification system may be considered a promising alternative.

International Society of Urological Pathology Expert Opinion on Grading of Urothelial Carcinoma

International Opinions on Grading of Urothelial Carcinoma: A Survey Among European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology Members

Proposal for a Novel Histological Scoring System as a Potential Grading Approach for Muscle-invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer Correlating with Disease Aggressiveness and Patient Outcomes

The Importance of Being Grade 3: A Plea for a Three-tier Hybrid Classification System for Grade in Primary Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

The ISUP system of staging, grading and classification of renal cell neoplasia

A novel grading approach predicts worse outcomes in stage pT1 non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Prognostic Performance of the 1973 and 2004 WHO Grading Classification in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma

[Several Key and Difficult Issues Related to the Grading of Urothelial Carcinoma of Urinary Bladder].

Intermediate-risk Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Updated Consensus Definition and Management Recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Group

Outcome Analysis of a Series of Mixed-Grade, Non-muscle Invasive, Papillary Carcinomas of the Bladder

WHO/ISUP classification, grading and pathological staging of renal cell carcinoma: standards and controversies

Grade Heterogeneity in High-Grade Urothelial Carcinomas: Does It Have an Impact on the Survival of Patients With Intermediate/High-Risk Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Who Received Adequate Adjuvant Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy?

The Grading System for Lung Adenocarcinoma: Brief Review of its Prognostic Performance and Future Directions

The 1973 Who Classification Is More Suitable Than The 2004 Who Classification For Predicting Prognosis In Non-Muscle- Invasive Bladder Cancer

Narrative review of prostate cancer grading systems: will the Gleason scores be replaced by the Grade Groups?

Mixed-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma: Insights Into Clinical Behavior and Prognostic Implications Compared to Pure Low-Grade and High-Grade Urothelial Carcinomas

Handling and reporting of transurethral resection specimens of the bladder in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP)

A Grading System for Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Proposal From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee

Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Guideline of Guidelines

Comparison of European and American Guidelines for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: How are they different?

A Consensus Molecular Classification of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer