[Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Information transfer from the clinic to the doctor's office : Results of a questionnaire study and presentation of a software solution]. / Nicht muskelinvasives Harnblasenkarzinom: Risikostratifizierung und Befundweitergabe : Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie und Vorstellung einer Softwarelösung.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The adjuvant treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is based on the individual risk profile (RP) and its sufficient transfer from the clinic to the doctor's office. The objectives of our study were to verify the importance and degree of transfer of RP and recommendation for risk-adapted adjuvant treatment (RAAT) in patients with NMIBC as well as to develop appropriate tools for this purpose, if necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An email-based survey distributed to urologists in Brandenburg, Berlin, Bavaria and Lower Saxony explored the questions mentioned above. In addition, a tool for risk stratification and information transfer for patients with NMIBC was developed and validated. RESULTS: From a total of 134 questionnaires analyzed, 55 were from clinic urologists (CUs) and 79 were from ambulant urologists (AUs). Although 9 out of 10 urologists considered the RP of importance, only 29 % of CUs and 24 % of AUs (p = 0.553) confirmed that the RP was always mentioned in medical reports. The recommendation for RAAT was confirmed from 62 % of CUs and 20 % of AUs (p < 0.001). A recommendation for RAAT in the medical report was requested by 86 % of AUs. The risk calculator presented here - to our knowledge the first with integration of the 2004 WHO grading - is delivered in all mathematically possible constellations a RP, according to guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Urologists in the clinic and doctor's office both attach considerable importance to the determination and transfer of RP and the recommendation for RAAT. There was evidence to suggest an overestimation of the quality of medical reports by the CU. The risk calculator provides an easy and cost-neutral option to improve risk stratification and information transfer from the clinic to the doctor's office.

[Results of a Questionnaire-Based Study on Guideline Adherence Regarding Adjuvant Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Just a Disturbing Sidelight?]. / Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie zur Leitlinienadhärenz der adjuvanten Therapieempfehlungen für Patienten mit nicht-muskelinvasivem Harnblasenkarzinom - nur ein beunruhigendes Streiflicht?

BACKGROUND: The EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) provide for risk stratification in low, intermediate and high risk based on infiltration depth, grading, concomitant carcinoma in situ, recurrence status, focality and tumour size. The aim of this study was to evaluate guideline adherence regarding risk stratification and risk-adapted treatment recommendations in NMIBC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An email-based survey distributed over the urological professional associations of Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein assessed field of activity (doctor's office vs. clinic) and the presence of the additional qualification "Medical Tumour Therapy" (aqMtt). Also it inquired about the tools used for risk stratification in NMIBC. Finally, 3 scenarios were given, 2 of them corresponding to high-risk NMIBC and one corresponding to intermediate-risk NMIBC. Respondents were asked to provide a treatment recommendation. The results were presented comparatively for field of activity (doctor's office vs. clinic) and presence of aqMtt. RESULTS: 74 responses were received (response rate of 12.3%). 57 (77.0%) of respondents had aqMtt. 52 (70.3%) worked in doctor's offices or medical care centres, 12 (16.2%) in a urology clinic, and for 10 (13.5%) respondents this information was lacking. The most frequently used tool for risk stratification was the EAU guideline. Accordingly, treatment recommendations for the three scenarios were considered to be correct if according to EAU guideline. In high-risk NMIBC, an average 29.3% (19.3-37.5%) of adequate treatment recommendations were made depending on the comparison group. An average of 69.8% (62.5-77.2%) and 0.9% (0.0-3.9%) treatment recommendations would lead to under- or overtreatment, respectively. The corresponding values for intermediate-risk NMIBC were 56.8% (52.6-62.5%) for adequate treatment, 43.2% (37.5-47.4%) for undertreatment and 0.0% for overtreatment. Field of activity and the presence of aqMtt had no significant impact on the accuracy of treatment recommendations. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey provide strong evidence of poor guideline adherence with a consecutive risk for undertreatment of patients with NMIBC. This requires joint efforts of all those involved in the treatment of NMIBC to improve quality of care.