ABSTRACT
Objective@#One of the common clinical problems warranting urologic evaluation is asymptomatic microscopic hematuria (AMH). According to some studies, it has prevalence as high as 38% with a possibility of urologic disease or malignancy around 23%. The presence of AMH would be quite a dilemma to a urologist in terms of how aggressive urologic evaluation and follow up is recommended. The present study was to determine the incidence of significant urologic diseases among Filipino patients with AMH on initial evaluation and on follow-up. This study would also determine if there would be a significant difference in terms of incidence of urologic disease among patients less than 35 years old and more than 35 years old with AMH.@*Methods@#A total number of 95 patients (38 male, 57 female) were included in this study. All patients presented with AMH. They were grouped in terms of age, gender, and duration of follow-up. All patients underwent cystoscopy and a diagnostic imaging (ultrasound, CT urogram, or CT stonogram) on initial evaluation. Patients then were followed up. They were divided into two groups, those less than 2 years of follow-up and those more than 2 years of follow-up. Excluded from the study are those patients with gross hematuria, on indwelling catheter, with urinary tract infection, with previous malignancy, history of pelvic irradiation, and those who did not undergo cystoscopy, or any urologic imaging. @*Results@#Out of 95 patients with AMH who underwent urologic evaluation, the incidence of urologic disease was noted to be 12% (11 out of 95). There was no malignancy related cause of AMH discovered. Age and gender failed to show any significant difference in terms of developing urologic disease. Among patients with negative findings on initial urologic evaluation, no urologic disease was noted even on follow-up. Among those with positive findings on initial evaluation, no new urologic disease was discovered on follow-up.@*Conclusion@#AMH has a low incidence of urologic disease or any GUT malignancy. Age and gender alone are not sufficient risk factors warranting an invasive endoscopic procedure. They are recommended only to those patients with high risk of urologic disease and can be avoided in majority of the population. We would recommend a kidney, urinary bladder, and prostate (KUBP) ultrasound as the initial imaging of choice since the only findings noted on evaluation through imaging were just two cases of nephrolithiasis, one via CT stonogram and the other through a CT urogram, which can also be diagnosed with a regular KUBP ultrasound. This would be more cost-effective as well as beneficial in terms of the patient’s risk regarding radiation and contrast-related effects. Clinicians may decrease unnecessary repeated urologic evaluation and follow-ups on patients with AMH, as the results of the study failed to show any significant difference in developing urologic disease for patients with persistent AMH on initial assessment and even on follow-up.