The accuracy of cystoscopy in predicting muscle invasion in newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The prognosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has not improved for three decades. Transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) is the standard procedure for local tumor staging. TURBT has several limitations, including the spread of tumor cells. Therefore, an alternative is needed in patients with suspected MIBC. Recent studies have shown that mpMRI is very accurate in staging bladder tumors. Because the diagnostic efficacy of urethrocystoscopy (UCS) has been reported as good as the efficacy of mpMRI to predict muscle invasion we performed this prospective multicenter study in which we compare UCS with pathology. METHODS: From July 2020 until March 2022, 321 patients with suspected primary BC in seven participating Dutch hospitals were included in this study. A flexible UCS was performed by urologists, physician assistants, or residents. Predictions of muscle invasion using a 5-point Likert scale alongside the histopathology data were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and 95% confidence intervals were determined using a standard contingency table. RESULTS: Of the 321 included patients, 232 (72.3%) received a histopathological diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and 71 (22.1%) were histopathologically diagnosed as MIBC. In 2 patients (0.6%), classification was not possible (Tx). Cystoscopy predicted muscle invasion with a sensitivity of 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.9), and a specificity of 89.9% (95% CI 85.4-93.3). This corresponds to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 67.1% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.7%. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a moderate accuracy of cystoscopy to predict muscle invasion. This result does not support the use of cystoscopy only instead of TURBT for local staging.

Complication rate after cystectomy following pelvic radiotherapy: an international, multicenter, retrospective series of 682 cases.

PURPOSE: Conflicting evidence exists on the complication rates after cystectomy following previous radiation (pRTC) with only a few available series. We aim to assess the complication rate of pRTC for abdominal-pelvic malignancies. METHODS: Patients treated with radical cystectomy following any previous history of RT and with available information on complications for a minimum of 1 year were included. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between the variable parameters and the risk of any complication. RESULTS: 682 patients underwent pRTC after a previous RT (80.5% EBRT) for prostate, bladder (BC), gynecological or other cancers in 49.1%, 27.4%, 9.8% and 12.9%, respectively. Overall, 512 (75.1%) had at least one post-surgical complication, classified as Clavien ≥ 3 in 29.6% and Clavien V in 2.9%. At least one surgical complication occurred in 350 (51.3%), including bowel leakage in 6.2% and ureteric stricture in 9.4%. A medical complication was observed in 359 (52.6%) patients, with UTI/pyelonephritis being the most common (19%), followed by renal failure (12%). The majority of patients (86%) received an incontinent urinary diversion. In multivariable analysis adjusted for age, gender and type of RT, patients treated with RT for bladder cancer had a 1.7 times increased relative risk of experiencing any complication after RC compared to those with RT for prostate cancer (p = 0.023). The type of diversion (continent vs non-continent) did not influence the risk of complications. CONCLUSION: pRTC carries a high rate of major complications that dramatically exceeds the rates reported in RT-naïve RCs.

Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology.

CONTEXT: The findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are used for clinical decision making. The European Association of Urology has committed increasing resources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible. When conducting a SR, the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question. An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis. Data are extracted independently by two reviewers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In SRs, data for particular outcomes in individual randomised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta-analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough. Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size, resulting in heterogeneity in outcome between studies. A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for randomised controlled trials. In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity, or when a review has included nonrandomised comparative studies, it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis. The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system, which can be applied to all evidence, regardless of quality. A SR not only identifies, evaluates, and summarises the best available evidence, but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies. CONCLUSIONS: SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential in their production. We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this paper.