Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Endoscopic surveillance for bladder cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices.
Russell, Beth; Kotecha, Pinky; Thurairaja, Ramesh; Nair, Rajesh; Malde, Sachin; Kumar, Pardeep; Khan, Muhammad Shamim.
Afiliação
  • Russell B; Translational Oncology and Urology Research, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Kotecha P; Translational Oncology and Urology Research, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Thurairaja R; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Nair R; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Malde S; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Kumar P; Department of Urology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Khan MS; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Transl Androl Urol ; 10(6): 2750-2761, 2021 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34295760
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to identify the current endoscopic surveillance strategies in use across the world and to determine whether these were sufficient or if any recommendations for changes in the guidelines could be made. This review focused on the cystoscopic follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients and muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients who had undergone bladder sparing treatments. METHODS: A literature search was carried out on Medline and Embase using OVID gateway according to a pre-defined protocol. Systematic screening of the identified studies was carried out by two authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal tools. Data was extracted on various aspects including the follow-up regime utilised, patients included, outcomes investigated and a summary of the results. The studies were compared in a narrative nature. RESULTS: A total of 2,604 studies were identified from the search strategy, of which 14 were deemed suitable for inclusion following the screening process. The studies identified were from nine countries and were mainly observational or qualitative. There was a huge variation in the follow-up regimes utilised within the studies with no clear consensus as to which regime was the most suitable. However, all studies utilised an initial cystoscopy at three months post-TURBT. No studies were identified which investigated the endoscopic follow-up strategies for MIBC patients who opted for bladder conservation with chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: There is no universally accepted protocol for endoscopic follow-up of patients with NMIBC bladder cancer. Guidance on cystoscopic monitoring of bladder in patients who have undergone chemoradiation for MIBC is also lacking.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Transl Androl Urol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Transl Androl Urol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article