Affiliations 

  • 1 Sección de Anatomía Patológica, Universidad Politécnica delle Marche, Facultad de Medicina, Hospitales Unidos, Ancona, Italy. Electronic address: a.cimadamore@staff.univpm.it
  • 2 Servicio de Urología, San Raffaele, Milán, Italy
  • 3 Servicio de Cirugía, Hospital Príncipe de Gales, Universidad China, Hong Kong, China
  • 4 Servicio de Urología, Clínica Universitaria de Bruselas, Hospital Erasme, Universidad Libre de Bruselas, Bruselas, Belgium
  • 5 Departmento de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
  • 6 División de Cirugía y Ciencias Intervencionistas, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 7 Servicio de Urología, San Raffaele, Milán, Italy; Departmento de Urología, Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Jikei, Tokio, Japan
  • 8 Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
  • 9 División de Urología, Hospital San Giovanni Battista, Universidad de Estudios de Turín, Turín, Italy
  • 10 Servicio de Urología, München Klinik Bogenhausen, Múnich, Alemania
  • 11 Servicio de Urología, San Raffaele, Milán, Italy; Instituto de Urología y Salud Reproductiva, Universidad Sechenov, Moscú, Russia
  • 12 Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  • 13 Departmento de Urología y Urología Oncológica, Universidad de Medicina de Breslavia, Breslavia, Poland
  • 14 Departamento de Urología, Hospital Lefkos Stavros, Atenas, Greece; Departamento de Urología, Hospital Universitario General de Heraklion, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Creta, Heraklion, Greece
  • 15 División de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía Especial, Universidad de Jordania, Amman, Jordan
  • 16 Servicio de Urología, Fundación Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
  • 17 Servicio de Urología UROSUD, Hospital La Croix du Sud, Quint Fonsegrives, France
PMID: 40097100 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501751

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Collaboration between pathologists and urologists is crucial for accurate diagnostic reporting and patient management, particularly in urology. This study aims to evaluate international practices regarding pathology reporting of bladder specimens to identify areas for improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey with 32 questions was developed in collaboration with the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer Working Party. It was sent to urologists with more than five years of experience across different institutions globally. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the responses.

RESULTS: A total of 157 responses were received from urologists, representing a response rate of 65%. Most respondents (64.3%) found pathological reports comprehensive, although 36% reported unclear reports in some cases. Pathologists were contacted for clarification in less than 20% of cases. Notably, the reporting of pathological subtypes and depth of invasion was inconsistent among institutions.

CONCLUSION: The survey highlights variability in pathology report quality across centers. Standardized reporting, increased pathologist involvement in multidisciplinary teams, and adherence to international guidelines are necessary to improve the accuracy and clarity of pathology reports in urology.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.