How do endoscopic bladder tumor resection techniques affect pathology practice? EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Uropathology (ESUP) survey

Purpose: We aimed to examine how different endoscopic bladder tumor resection techniques affect pathologists’ clinical practice patterns. Methods: An online survey including 28 questions clustered in four main sections was prepared by the ESUT ERBT Working Group and released to the pathologists working in the institutions of experts of the ESUT Board and the working groups and experts in the uropathology working group. A descriptive analysis was performed using the collected data. Results: Sixty-eight pathologists from 23 countries responded to the survey. 37.3% of the participants stated that they always report the T1 sub-staging. Of those who gave sub-staging, 61.3% used T1a, b. 85.2% think that en bloc samples provide spatial orientation faster than piecemeal samples, and 60% think en bloc samples are timesaving during an inspection. 55.7% stated that whether the tissue sample is en bloc or piecemeal is essential. 57.4% think en bloc sample reduces turnaround time and is cost-effective for 44.1%. A large number of pathologists find that the pathology examination of piecemeal samples has a longer learning curve. Conclusion: The survey shows that pathologists think that they can diagnose faster, accurately, and cost-effectively with ERBT samples, but they do not often encounter them in practice. Moreover, en bloc samples may be a better choice in pathology resident training. Evidence from real-life observational pathology practice and clinical research can reveal the current situation more clearly and increase awareness on proper treatment in endoscopic management of bladder tumors.