Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 23, 2025
Induction of Invasive Transitional Cell Bladder Carcinoma in Immune Intact Human MUC1 Transgenic Mice: A Model for Immunotherapy Development
Published on: October 30, 2013
T1G1 Bladder Cancer: Prognosis for this Rare Pathological Diagnosis Within the Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer
Irene J Beijert1, Anouk E Hentschel1, Johannes Bründl2
1Department of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Background:
The pathological existence and clinical consequence of stage T1 grade 1 (T1G1) bladder cancer are the subject of debate. Even though the diagnosis of T1G1 is controversial, several reports have consistently found a prevalence of 2-6% G1 in their T1 series. However, it remains unclear if T1G1 carcinomas have added value as a separate category to predict prognosis within the non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) spectrum.
Objective:
To evaluate the prognostic value of T1G1 carcinomas compared to TaG1 and T1G2 carcinomas within the NMIBC spectrum.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
Individual patient data for 5170 primary Ta and T1 bladder tumors from 17 hospitals in Europe and Canada were analyzed. Transurethral resection (TUR) was performed between 1990 and 2018.
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis:
Time to recurrence and progression were analyzed using cumulative incidence functions, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models stratified by institution.
Results And Limitations:
T1G1 represented 1.9% (99/5170) of all carcinomas and 5.3% (99/1859) of T1 carcinomas. According to primary TUR dates, the proportion of T1G1 varied between 0.9% and 3.5% per year, with similar percentages in the early and later calendar years. We found no difference in time to recurrence between T1G1 and TaG1 (p = 0.91) or between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Time to progression significantly differed between TaG1 and T1G1 (p < 0.001) but not between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Multivariable analyses for recurrence and progression showed similar results.
Conclusions:
The relative prevalence of T1G1 diagnosis was low and remained constant over the past three decades. Time to recurrence of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for other stage/grade NMIBC combinations. Time to progression of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for T1G2 but not for TaG1, suggesting that treatment and surveillance of T1G1 carcinomas should be more like the approaches for T1G2 NMIBC in accordance with the intermediate and/or high risk categories of the European Association of Urology NMIBC guidelines.
Patient Summary:
Although rare, stage T1 grade 1 (T1G1) bladder cancer is still diagnosed in daily clinical practice. Using individual patient data from 17 centers in Europe and Canada, we found that time to progression of T1G1 cancer was comparable to that for T1G2 but not TaG1 cancer. Therefore, our results suggest that primary T1G1 bladder cancers should be managed with more aggressive treatment and more frequent follow-up than for low-risk bladder cancer.
