RESUMO
Optimal urine-based diagnostic tests (UBDT) minimize unnecessary follow-up cystoscopies in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder-cancer (NMIBC), while accurately detecting high-grade bladder-cancer without false-negative results. Such UBDTs have not been comprehensively described upon a broad, validated dataset, resulting in cautious guideline recommendations. Uromonitor®, a urine-based DNA-assay detecting hotspot alterations in TERT, FGFR3, and KRAS, shows promising initial results. However, a systematic review merging all available data is lacking. Studies investigating the diagnostic performance of Uromonitor® in NMIBC until November 2023 were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web-of-Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and medRxiv databases. Within aggregated analyses, test performance and area under the curve/AUC were calculated. This project fully implemented the PRISMA statement. Four qualifying studies comprised a total of 1190 urinary tests (bladder-cancer prevalence: 14.9%). Based on comprehensive analyses, sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value/PPV, negative-predictive value/NPV, and test accuracy of Uromonitor® were 80.2%, 96.9%, 82.1%, 96.6%, and 94.5%, respectively, with an AUC of 0.886 (95%-CI: 0.851-0.921). In a meta-analysis of two studies comparing test performance with urinary cytology, Uromonitor® significantly outperformed urinary cytology in sensitivity, PPV, and test accuracy, while no significant differences were observed for specificity and NPV. This systematic review supports the use of Uromonitor® considering its favorable diagnostic performance. In a cohort of 1000 patients with a bladder-cancer prevalence of ~15%, this UBDT would avert 825 unnecessary cystoscopies (true-negatives) while missing 30 bladder-cancer cases (false-negatives). Due to currently limited aggregated data from only four studies with heterogeneous quality, confirmatory studies are needed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Research on penile cancer (PeCa) is predominantly conducted in countries with centralized treatment of PeCa-patients. In Germany and Austria (G + A), no state-regulated centralization is established, and no information is available on how PeCa-research is organized. METHODS: Current research competence in PeCa was assessed by a 36-item questionnaire sent to all chairholders of urological academic centers in G + A. Based on PubMed records, all scientific PeCa-articles of 2012-2022 from G + A were identified. Current research trends were assessed by dividing the literature search into two periods (P1: 2012-2017, P2: 2018-2022). A bibliometric analysis was supplemented. RESULTS: Response rate of the questionnaire was 75%, a median of 13 (IQR: 9-26) PeCa-patients/center was observed in 2021. Retrospective case series were conducted by 38.9% of participating clinics, while involvement in randomized-controlled trials was stated in 8.3% and in basic/fundamental research in 19.4%. 77.8% declared an interest in future multicenter projects. 205 PeCa-articles were identified [median impact factor: 2.77 (IQR: 0.90-4.37)]. Compared to P1, P2 showed a significant increase in the median annual publication count (29 (IQR: 13-17) vs. 15 (IQR: 19-29), p < 0.001), in multicenter studies (79.1% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.018), and in multinational studies (53% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001); the proportion of basic/fundamental research articles significantly declined (16.5% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.041). Four of the top-5 institutions publishing PeCa-articles are academic centers. Bibliometric analyses revealed author networks, primary research areas in PeCa, and dominant journals for publications. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of centralization in G + A, this analysis highlights the need for research coordination within multicenter PeCa-projects. The decline in basic/fundamental research should be effectively addressed by the allocation of funded research projects.