The IDENTIFY study: the investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC] and renal cancer) in patients referred to secondary care with haematuria, adjusted for established patient risk markers and geographical variation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international multicentre prospective observational study. We included patients aged ≥16 years, referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. We estimated the prevalence of bladder cancer, UTUC, renal cancer and prostate cancer; stratified by age, type of haematuria, sex, and smoking. We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to adjust cancer prevalence for age, type of haematuria, sex, smoking, hospitals, and countries. RESULTS: Of the 11 059 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 896 were included from 110 hospitals across 26 countries. The overall adjusted cancer prevalence (n = 2257) was 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-34.1), bladder cancer (n = 1951) 24.7% (95% CI 19.1-30.2), UTUC (n = 128) 1.14% (95% CI 0.77-1.52), renal cancer (n = 107) 1.05% (95% CI 0.80-1.29), and prostate cancer (n = 124) 1.75% (95% CI 1.32-2.18). The odds ratios for patient risk markers in the model for all cancers were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001), visible haematuria 3.47 (95% CI 2.90-4.15; P < 0.001), male sex 1.30 (95% CI 1.14-1.50; P < 0.001), and smoking 2.70 (95% CI 2.30-3.18; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of cancer prevalence across an international population is required to inform clinical guidelines. We are the first to report urinary tract cancer prevalence across an international population in patients referred to secondary care, adjusted for patient risk markers and geographical variation. Bladder cancer was the most prevalent disease. Visible haematuria was the strongest predictor for urinary tract cancer.

A call for HoLEP: AEEP for mega-prostates (≥ 200 cc).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficiency and efficacy of HoLEP, and methods of tissue retrieval, in patients with prostate volume (PV) ≥ 200 cc (Group 1) and to compare these to patients with PV 80-199 cc (Group 2). METHODS: A database of all cases performed under the care of two surgeons at a tertiary HoLEP centre was reviewed. RESULTS: 157 patients with PV ≥ 200 cc were compared to 157 of the most recent consecutive cases with PV 80-199 cc. Median (IQR) enucleation efficiency was greater in Group 1 [2.8 g/min (2.2-3.5)] than Group 2 [2.1 g/min (1.6-2.5), p < 0.001]. Morcellation efficiency did not differ significantly. Cystotomy was required for tissue retrieval in Group 1 only (5.7%). Decrease in serum haemoglobin (Hb) was greater in Group 1 (19 g/l (30-8) vs 12 (18-3.5), p < 0.001) with a transfusion rate of 4.5% vs 1.3%, respectively (p = 0.104). Length of stay was longer in Group 1 than Group 2 (1 day (1-2) vs 1 (1-1), p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in: time to and success of first trial without catheter, pre- and post-operative IPSS, Qmax and PVR, and 3 month catheter-free and urinary incontinence rates. CONCLUSION: HoLEP outcomes are largely PV-independent even when PV is ≥ 200 cc, although length of stay and reduction in Hb are greater in this group. Alternatives to pure morcellation, such as cystotomy and resection of nodules, are more likely to be necessary with PV ≥ 200 cc.

Developing a Diagnostic Multivariable Prediction Model for Urinary Tract Cancer in Patients Referred with Haematuria: Results from the IDENTIFY Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient factors associated with urinary tract cancer can be used to risk stratify patients referred with haematuria, prioritising those with a higher risk of cancer for prompt investigation. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for urinary tract cancer in patients referred with haematuria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 10 282 patients from 110 hospitals across 26 countries, aged ≥16 yr and referred to secondary care with haematuria. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were the presence or absence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC], and renal cancer). Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was performed with site and country as random effects and clinically important patient-level candidate predictors, chosen a priori, as fixed effects. Predictors were selected primarily using clinical reasoning, in addition to backward stepwise selection. Calibration and discrimination were calculated, and bootstrap validation was performed to calculate optimism. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The unadjusted prevalence was 17.2% (n = 1763) for bladder cancer, 1.20% (n = 123) for UTUC, and 1.00% (n = 103) for renal cancer. The final model included predictors of increased risk (visible haematuria, age, smoking history, male sex, and family history) and reduced risk (previous haematuria investigations, urinary tract infection, dysuria/suprapubic pain, anticoagulation, catheter use, and previous pelvic radiotherapy). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.85-0.87). The model is limited to patients without previous urological malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: This cancer prediction model is the first to consider established and novel urinary tract cancer diagnostic markers. It can be used in secondary care for risk stratifying patients and aid the clinician's decision-making process in prioritising patients for investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We have developed a tool that uses a person's characteristics to determine the risk of cancer if that person develops blood in the urine (haematuria). This can be used to help prioritise patients for further investigation.