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.