[Cystoscopic impression versus histologic diagnosis in bladder tumors. Do they coincide?]

How quality control in a university hospital and immediatly after to resents publications; we planed to evaluation of the correlation of cystoscopy impression with the histologic diagnosis after of transurethral resection (TUR).

To give more truthfulness to the study, we requested to all department member's, that to base in your experience to describe the endoscopic characteristic of the next bladder tumors groups: superficial and low-grade GI-II Ta, superficial and high-grade GIII Ta and high grade and/or T1-< T2. In a total of 172 patients, we evaluated the initial cystoscopy impression and we to compared it with histologic diagnosis after to TUR.

In 172 tumors the cystoscopy classifed in 69 cases how superficial and low grade GI-II Ta-T1, 40 how superficial and high grade and 55 how high grade and/or invasive tumors GIII T1-< T2. When, we compared it with the histologic diagnosis, the cystoscopy to coincided in 46 de 69 cases (66.6%) (PNS) with the group of low-grade GI-II Ta-T1 in 13 of 40 (32.5%) (P < 0.005) with the group of superficial high grade GIII Ta and 45 of 51 (88.2%) (PNS) with the group of GIII T1 and/or invasive tumors. In 15 of 172 the endoscopic description its not conclusive. And finally in 12 cases the histologic diagnosis were normal.

In order of this results, we to consider that in a university hospital is essential the histologic diagnosis before any therapeutic decision, because the initial cystoscopy impression have a low correlation with the histologic diagnosis. We are disagreement with recent publication that propose the outpatient cystoscopy with fulguration to base only to the cystoscopy impression.