Treatment and outcome of fibroepithelial ureteral polyps: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Fibroepithelial polyps of the ureter are rare. Cases and small series are reported in the literature. The treatment of choice, outcome and appropriate follow-up regimen remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of papers reporting fibroepithelial polyps of the ureter in adult patients. Articles published before 1980 were excluded. RESULTS: The search yielded 144 papers, of which 68 met the inclusion criteria. A reference scan from the included 68 yielded an additional 7 new articles. In total, our study included 75 articles (68 + 7). A total of 134 patients were described. Most patients had a single lesion (range: 1-10). The median length of the polyp was 4.0 cm (range: 0.4-17.0). The percentage of polyps resected endoscopically increased from 0% before 1985 to 67% after 2005. Two perioperative complications were reported in 72 procedures (2.8%): a deep venous thrombosis and a case of mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Both of these occurred after open surgery. Follow-up data were available for 57 patients. The median follow-up was 12 months (range: 1-180). Four patients (7.0%) developed recurrent complaints: 2 had urinary stones, 1 had a ureteral stricture and 1 had recurrence of the polyp. Three of these events followed endoscopic resection, and occurred within a year after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resection of fibroepithelial polyps seems to be safe and effective. It is minimally invasive and should be considered the gold standard where endoscopic expertise is available. We advise follow-up imaging by computed tomographic intravenous urography after 3 months and ultrasound after 1 year to detect late complications.

Impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing by Dutch general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) publication in 2009 on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level testing by Dutch general practitioners (GPs) in men aged ≥40 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study with a Dutch insurance company database (containing PSA test claims) and a large district hospital-laboratory database (containing PSA-test results). The difference in primary PSA-testing rate as well as follow-up testing before and after the ERSPC was tested using the chi-square test with statistical significance at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Decline in PSA tests 4 months after ERSPC publication, especially for men aged ≥60 years. Primary testing as well as follow-up testing decreased, both for PSA levels of <4 ng/mL as well as for PSA levels of 4-10 ng/mL. Follow-up testing after a PSA level result of >10 ng/mL moderately increased (P = 0.171). Referral to a urologist after a PSA level result of >4 ng/mL decreased slightly after the ERSPC publication (P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: After the ERSPC publication primary PSA testing as well as follow-up testing decreased. Follow-up testing seemed not to be adequate after an abnormal PSA result. The reasons for this remain unclear.

Prostate specific antigen testing policy worldwide varies greatly and seems not to be in accordance with guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing is widely used, but guidelines on follow-up are unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine follow-up policy after PSA testing by general practitioners (GPs) and non-urologic hospitalists, the use of a cut-off value for this policy, the reasons for repeating a PSA test after an initial normal result, the existence of a general cut-off value below which a PSA result is considered normal, and the time frame for repeating a test. Data sources. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and the Cochrane library from January 1950 until May 2011. Study eligibility criteria. Studies describing follow-up policy by GPs or non-urologic hospitalists after a primary PSA test, excluding urologists and patients with prostate cancer. Studies written in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish were included. Excluded were studies describing follow-up policy by urologists and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. The quality of each study was structurally assessed. RESULTS: Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were of high quality. Follow-up differed greatly both after a normal and an abnormal PSA test result. Only one study described the reasons for not performing follow-up after an abnormal PSA result. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, we cannot adequately assess physicians' follow-up policy after a primary PSA test. Follow-up after a normal or raised PSA test by GPs and non-urologic hospitalists seems to a large extent not in accordance with the guidelines.