Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel Summary Report: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Screening Siblings of Children With Vesicoureteral Reflux and Neonates/Infants With Prenatal Hydronephrosis.

PURPOSE: The American Urological Association established the Vesicoureteral Reflux Guideline Update Committee in July 2005 to update the management of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children guideline. The Panel defined the task into 5 topics pertaining to specific vesicoureteral reflux management issues, which correspond to the management of 3 distinct index patients and the screening of 2 distinct index patients. This report summarizes the existing evidence pertaining to screening of siblings and offspring of index patients with vesicoureteral reflux and infants with prenatal hydronephrosis. From this evidence clinical practice guidelines are developed to manage the clinical scenarios insofar as the data permit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Panel searched the MEDLINE(R) database from 1994 to 2008 for all relevant articles dealing with the 5 chosen guideline topics. The database was reviewed and each abstract segregated into a specific topic area. Exclusions were case reports, basic science, secondary reflux, review articles and not relevant. The extracted article to be accepted should have assessed a cohort of children, clearly stating the number of children undergoing screening for vesicoureteral reflux. Vesicoureteral reflux should have been diagnosed with a cystogram and renal outcomes assessed by nuclear scintigraphy. The screening articles were extracted into data tables developed to evaluate epidemiological factors, patient and renal outcomes, and results of treatment. The reporting of meta-analysis of observational studies elaborated by the MOOSE group was followed. The extracted data were analyzed and formulated into evidence-based recommendations regarding the screening of siblings and offspring in index cases with vesicoureteral reflux and infants with prenatal hydronephrosis. RESULTS: In screened populations the prevalence of vesicoureteral reflux is 27.4% in siblings and 35.7% in offspring. Prevalence decreases at a rate of 1 screened person every 3 months of age. The prevalence is the same in males and females. Bilateral reflux prevalence is similar to unilateral reflux. Grade I-II reflux is estimated to be present in 16.7% and grade III-V reflux in 9.8% of screened patients. The estimate for renal cortical abnormalities overall is 19.3%, with 27.8% having renal damage in cohorts of symptomatic and asymptomatic children combined. In asymptomatic siblings only the rate of renal damage is 14.4%. There are presently no randomized, controlled trials of treated vs untreated screened siblings with vesicoureteral reflux to evaluate health outcomes as spontaneous resolution, decreased rates of urinary infection, pyelonephritis or renal scarring. In screened populations with prenatal hydronephrosis the prevalence of vesicoureteral reflux is 16.2%. Reflux in the contralateral nondilated kidney accounted for a mean of 25.2% of detected cases for a mean prevalence of 4.1%. In patients with a normal postnatal renal ultrasound the prevalence of reflux is 17%. The prenatal anteroposterior renal pelvic diameter was not predictive of reflux prevalence. A diameter of 4 mm is associated with a 10% to 20% prevalence of vesicoureteral reflux. The prevalence of reflux is statistically significantly greater in females (23%) than males (16%) (p=0.022). Reflux grade distribution is approximately a third each for grades I-II, III and IV-V. The estimate of renal damage in screened infants without infection is 21.8%. When stratified by reflux grade renal damage was estimated to be present in 6.2% grade I-III and 47.9% grade IV-V (p <0.0001). The risk of urinary tract infection in patients with and without prenatal hydronephrosis and vesicoureteral reflux could not be determined. The incidence of reported urinary tract infection in patients with reflux was 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis provided meaningful information regarding screening for vesicoureteral reflux. However, the lack of randomized clinical trials for screened patients to assess clinical health outcomes has made evidence-based guideline recommendations difficult. Consequently, screening guidelines are based on present practice, risk assessment, meta-analysis results and Panel consensus.

Improved detection of prostate cancer using classification and regression tree analysis.

PURPOSE: To build a decision tree for patients suspected of having prostate cancer using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were uniformly collected on 1,433 referred men with a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of < or = 10 ng/mL who underwent a prostate biopsy. Factors analyzed included demographic, laboratory, and ultrasound data (ie, hypoechoic lesions and PSA density [PSAD]). Twenty percent of the data was randomly selected and reserved for study validation. CART analysis was performed in two steps, initially using PSA and digital rectal examination (DRE) alone and subsequently using the remaining variables. RESULTS: CART analysis selected a PSA cutoff of more than 1.55 ng/mL for further work-up, regardless of DRE findings. CART then selected the following subgroups at risk for a positive biopsy: (1) PSAD more than 0.165 ng/mL/cc; (2) PSAD < or = 0.165 ng/mL/cc and a hypoechoic lesion; (3) PSAD < or = 0.165 ng/mL/cc, no hypoechoic lesions, age older than 55.5 years, and prostate volume < or = 44.0 cc; and (4) PSAD < or = 0.165 ng/mL/cc, no hypoechoic lesions, age older than 55.5 years, and 50.25 cc less than prostate volume < or = 80.8 cc. In the validation data set, specificity and sensitivity were 31.3% and 96.6%, respectively. Cancers that were missed by the CART were Gleason score 6 or less in 93.4% of cases. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed that CART and logistic regression models had similar accuracy (area under the curve = 0.74 v 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSION: Application of CART analysis to the prostate biopsy decision results in a significant reduction in unnecessary biopsies while retaining a high degree of sensitivity when compared with the standard of performing a biopsy of all patients with an abnormal PSA or DRE.

Predictive modeling for the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound parameters in patients with prostate specific antigen levels < or = 10 ng/mL.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to develop a model for predicting the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) data. METHODS: Data were collected on 1237 referred men with serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels < or = 10 ng/mL who underwent an initial prostate biopsy. Variables analyzed included age, race, family history, referral indication(s), prior vasectomy, digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA level, PSA density (PSAD), and TRUS findings. Twenty percent of the data were reserved randomly for study validation. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the relative risk, 95% confidence interval, and P values. RESULTS: Independent predictors of a positive biopsy result included elevated PSAD, abnormal DRE, hypoechoic TRUS finding, and age 75 years or older. Based on these variables, a predictive nomogram was developed. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were 92% and 24%, respectively, in the validation study for which the predictive probability > or = 10% was used to indicate the presence of prostate carcinoma. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the model was 73%, which was significantly higher compared with the prediction based on PSA alone (AUC, 62%). If it was validated externally, then application of this model to the biopsy decision could result in a 24% reduction in unnecessary biopsy procedures, with an overall reduction of 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of clinical, laboratory, and TRUS data into a prebiopsy nomogram significantly improved the prediction of prostate carcinoma over the use of individual factors alone. Predictive nomograms may serve as an aid to patient counseling regarding prostate biopsy outcome and to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsy procedures.