ReviewHistopathology2026
Grading of bladder cancer: updates, controversies and practical solutions.
Review in Histopathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Muscle invasion in bladder cancer is associated with increased expression of ATG5, LC3A and CHOP.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- The Association Between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Histological Tumor Differentiation in Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multi-DECT image-based intra- and peritumoral interpretable radiomics and artificial intelligence models for preoperative prediction of pathological grading of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Utility of GATA3, Uroplakin-II, and p40 Markers in the Diagnosis of Urothelial Carcinoma.Cureus · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic outcomes of bladder urothelial neoplasms in patients under 40 years of age: a multicenter retrospective study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- UrinaryTranslational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bladder cancer grading provides important prognostic information to clinicians, and the assigned grade is used as a variable in risk stratification models. There have been multiple proposed grading schemes over the last century, with the most widely utilized in contemporary practice being the World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 and 2004 schemes, with WHO 2004 used almost exclusively in North America, and dual grading using both 2004 and 1973 is in widespread use in Europe. Recently, there has been increased interest in hybrid grading schemes for papillary bladder cancer. These combine features from both aforementioned schemes and have demonstrated prognostic performance that exceeds WHO 2004 and WHO 1973. In this article, we review the historical background and new concepts in bladder cancer grading, highlight the opinions and perspectives of clinicians and pathologists, and assess the challenges along with evidence for and against different grading schemes. We discuss the potential contribution of hybrid 3-tier grading of bladder cancer and how this could impact the classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms and shape future grading scheme proposals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.