Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is recommended for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and robust treatment response may result in lack of grossly identifiable tumor in the cystectomy specimen. Current gross examination and reporting protocols, however, do not include specific guidance on the approach to these specimens.
A Qualtrics survey was disseminated by email and X (formerly Twitter). Responses from pathologists and pathologists’ assistants (PAs) were included. The survey interrogated demographics, practice settings, prevalence of NACT use, approach to gross examination, and reporting practices in the setting of both grossly visible tumor or ulcer bed and the complete absence of a gross lesion.
Based on 55 respondents’ experience, identifying gross tumor occurred less frequently than tumor or ulcer bed (40% vs 71%). Lack of identification of any gross lesions was estimated to occur in 29% of cases. Gross examination practices were relatively consistent in cases with residual gross tumor or gross tumor bed, with agreement that gross tumor should be submitted as 1 block per centimeter (66%), and tumor or ulcer bed should be submitted in its entirety (97%). Gross examination practices appeared more varied when no gross lesions were identified. Overall, most responders stated they “definitely” or “maybe” support a standardized gross examination (89%) and reporting (96%) protocol.
With the increased use of NACT, lack of any gross lesion leads to inconsistent gross examination techniques. This study provides insight into the current approach to examination of post-NACT cystectomies and suggests that a desire exists among pathologists and pathologists’ assistants for more standardized practice.

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pathology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.