Exploring patients' experience and perception of being diagnosed with bladder cancer: a mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient experience and perception following a diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting patients with NMIBC for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising: (i) the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ) and (ii) semi-structured interviews to explore patients' experience of having haematuria, and initial and subsequent experience with a NMIBC diagnosis. Both assessments were completed at 6 months after NMIBC diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients completed the Brief-IPQ. Patients felt that they had minimal symptoms (median [interquartile range, IQR] score 2 [0-5]) and were not particularly affected emotionally (median [IQR] score 3 [1-6]) with a minimal effect to their daily life (median [IQR] score 2 [0-5]). However, they remained concerned about their cancer diagnosis (median [IQR] score 5 [3-8]) and felt that they had no personal control over the cancer (median [IQR] score 2 [2-5]) and believed that their illness would affect them for some time (median [IQR] score 6 [3-10]). A significant association with a lower personal control of the disease (P < 0.05) and a poorer understanding of the management of NMIBC (P < 0.05) was seen in patients aged >70 years. Many patients were uncertain about the cause of bladder cancer. Qualitative analysis found that at initial presentation of haematuria, most patients were not aware of the risk of bladder cancer. Patients were most anxious and psychologically affected between the interval of cystoscopy diagnosis and transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Following TURBT, most patients were positive about their cancer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Patients with NMIBC have a poor perception of disease control and believe that their disease will continue over a prolonged period of time. This is particularly more pertinent in the elderly. Patients are most psychologically affected during the interval between cancer diagnosis following cystoscopy and TURBT. Health awareness about bladder cancer remained poor with a significant number of patients unaware of the causes of bladder cancer. Psychological support and prompt TURBT following bladder cancer diagnosis would help improve the mental health of patients with NMIBC.

Mixed-methods approach to exploring patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference. RESULTS: A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self-reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients' home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low- and high-risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to that of cystoscopy. CONCLUSION: Patients value the high sensitivity of cystoscopy despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced after it. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy to gain patients' acceptance.

Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of urinary cytology to diagnose bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) as well as the outcome of patients with a positive urine cytology and normal haematuria investigations in patients in a multicentre prospective observational study of patients investigated for haematuria. PATIENT AND METHODS: The DETECT I study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02676180) recruited patients presenting with haematuria following referral to secondary case at 40 hospitals. All patients had a cystoscopy and upper tract imaging (renal bladder ultrasound [RBUS] and/ or CT urogram [CTU]). Patients, where urine cytology were performed, were sub-analysed. The reference standard for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was histological confirmation of cancer. A positive urine cytology was defined as a urine cytology suspicious for neoplastic cells or atypical cells. RESULTS: Of the 3 556 patients recruited, urine cytology was performed in 567 (15.9%) patients from nine hospitals. Median time between positive urine cytology and endoscopic tumour resection was 27 (IQR: 21.3-33.8) days. Bladder cancer was diagnosed in 39 (6.9%) patients and UTUC in 8 (1.4%) patients. The accuracy of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was: sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 95.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 47.6% and negative predictive value (NPV) 94.9%. A total of 21 bladder cancers and 5 UTUC were missed. Bladder cancers missed according to grade and stage were as follows: 4 (19%) were ≥ pT2, 2 (9.5%) were G3 pT1, 10 (47.6%) were G3/2 pTa and 5 (23.8%) were G1 pTa. High-risk cancer was confirmed in 8 (38%) patients. There was a marginal improvement in sensitivity (57.7%) for high-risk cancers. When urine cytology was combined with imaging, the diagnostic performance improved with CTU (sensitivity 90.2%, specificity 94.9%) superior to RBUS (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 96.7%). False positive cytology results were confirmed in 22 patients, of which 12 (54.5%) had further invasive tests and 5 (22.7%) had a repeat cytology. No cancer was identified in these patients during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Urine cytology will miss a significant number of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and high-risk disease. Our results suggest that urine cytology should not be routinely performed as part of haematuria investigations. The role of urine cytology in select cases should be considered in the context of the impact of a false positive result leading to further potentially invasive tests conducted under general anaesthesia.

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion versus open radical cystectomy (iROC): protocol for a randomised controlled trial with internal feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Bladder cancer (BC) is a common malignancy and one of the most expensive to manage. Radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymphadenectomy is a gold standard treatment for high-risk BC. Reductions in morbidity and mortality from RC may be achieved through robot-assisted RC (RARC). Prospective comparisons between open RC (ORC) and RARC have been limited by sample size, use of extracorporeal reconstruction and use of outcomes important for ORC. Conversely, while RARC is gaining in popularity, there is little evidence to suggest it is superior to ORC. We are undertaking a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare RARC with intracorporeal reconstruction (iRARC) and ORC using multimodal outcomes to explore qualitative and quantitative recovery after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: iROC is a multicentre prospective RCT in English National Health Service (NHS) cancer centres. We will randomise 320 patients undergoing RC to either iRARC or ORC. Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within the first 90 days from surgery. Secondary outcomes will measure functional recovery (activity trackers, chair-to-stand tests and health related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires), morbidity (complications and readmissions), cost-effectiveness (using EuroQol-5 Domain-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and unit costs) and surgeon fatigue. Patients will be analysed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome will be transformed and analysed using regression. All statistical assumptions will be investigated. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using appropriate regression methods. An internal feasibility study of the first 30 patients will evaluate recruitment rates, acceptance of randomised treatment choice, compliance outcome collection and to revise our sample size. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval (REC reference 16/NE/0418). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, funders and the NHS through peer-reviewed publications, social media and patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN13680280 and NCT03049410.

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?

PURPOSE: Computerized tomography urogram is recommended when investigating patients with hematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography urogram to that of renal and bladder ultrasound for identifying urinary tract cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DETECT (Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test) I study is a prospective observational study recruiting patients 18 years old or older following presentation with macroscopic or microscopic hematuria at a total of 40 hospitals. All patients underwent cystoscopy and upper tract imaging comprising computerized tomography urogram and/or renal and bladder ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 3,556 patients with a median age of 68 years were recruited in this study, of whom 2,166 underwent renal and bladder ultrasound, and 1,692 underwent computerized tomography urogram in addition to cystoscopy. The incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer was 11.0%, 1.4% and 0.8%, respectively, in macroscopic hematuria cases. Patients with microscopic hematuria had a 2.7%, 0.4% and 0% incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of renal and bladder ultrasound to detect renal cancer were 85.7% and 99.9% but they were 14.3% and 99.7%, respectively, to detect upper tract urothelial cancer. Renal and bladder ultrasound was poor at identifying renal calculi. Renal and bladder ultrasound sensitivity was lower than that of computerized tomography urogram to detect bladder cancer (each less than 85%). Cystoscopy had 98.3% specificity and 83.9% positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomography urogram can be safely replaced by renal and bladder ultrasound in patients who have microscopic hematuria. The incidence of upper tract urothelial cancer is 0.8% in patients with macroscopic hematuria and computerized tomography urogram is recommended. Patients with suspected renal calculi require noncontrast renal tract computerized tomography. Imaging cannot replace cystoscopy to diagnose bladder cancer.

Who Should Be Investigated for Haematuria? Results of a Contemporary Prospective Observational Study of 3556 Patients.

There remains a lack of consensus among guideline relating to which patients require investigation for haematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer in a prospective observational study of 3556 patients referred for investigation of haematuria across 40 hospitals between March 2016 and June 2017 (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) and the appropriateness of age at presentation in cases with visible (VH) and nonvisible (NVH) haematuria. The overall incidence of urinary tract cancer was 10.0% (bladder cancer 8.0%, renal parenchymal cancer 1.0%, upper tract transitional cell carcinoma 0.7%, and prostate cancer 0.3%). Patients with VH were more likely to have a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer compared with NVH patients (13.8% vs 3.1%). Older patients, male gender, and smoking history were independently associated with urinary tract cancer diagnosis. Of bladder cancers diagnosed following NVH, 59.4% were high-risk cancers, with 31.3% being muscle invasive. The incidence of cancer in VH patients <45 yr of age was 3.5% (n=7) and 1.0% (n=4) in NVH patients <60 yr old. Our results suggest that patients with VH should be investigated regardless of age. Although the risk of urinary tract cancer in NVH patients is low, clinically significant cancers are detected below the age threshold for referral for investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study highlights the requirement to investigate all patients with visible blood in the urine and an age threshold of ≥60 yr, as recommended in some guidelines, as the investigation of nonvisible blood in the urine will miss a significant number of urinary tract cancers. Patient preference is important, and evidence that patients are willing to submit to investigation should be considered in reaching a consensus recommendation for the investigation of haematuria. International consensus to guide that patients will benefit from investigation should be developed.

DETECT I & DETECT II: a study protocol for a prospective multicentre observational study to validate the UroMark assay for the detection of bladder cancer from urinary cells.

BACKGROUND: Haematuria is a common finding in general practice which requires visual inspection of the bladder by cystoscopy as well as upper tract imaging. In addition, patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) often require surveillance cystoscopy as often as three monthly depending on disease risk. However, cystoscopy is an invasive procedure which is uncomfortable, requires hospital attendance and is associated with a risk of urinary tract infection. We have developed the UroMark assay, which can detect 150 methylation specific alteration specific to bladder cancer using DNA from urinary sediment cells. METHODS: DETECT I and DETECT II are two multi-centre prospective observational studies designed to conduct a robust validation of the UroMark assay. DETECT I will recruit patients having diagnostic investigations for haematuria to determine the negative predictive value of the UroMark to rule out the presence of bladder cancer. DETECT II will recruit patients with new or recurrent bladder cancer to determine the sensitivity of the UroMark in detecting low, intermediate and high grade bladder cancer. NMIBC patients in DETECT II will be followed up with three monthly urine sample collection for 24 months while having surveillance cystoscopy. DETECT II will include a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews to explore patients' experience of being diagnosed with bladder cancer and having cystoscopy and a urinary test for bladder cancer surveillance. Results of the UroMark will be compared to cystoscopy findings and histopathological results in patients with bladder cancer. DISCUSSION: A sensitive and specific urinary biomarker will revolutionise the haematuria diagnostic pathway and surveillance strategies for NMIBC patients. None of the six approved US Food and Drug Administration urinary test are recommended as a standalone test. The UroMark assay is based on next generation sequencing technology which interrogates 150 loci and represents a step change compared to other biomarker panels. This enhances the sensitivity of the test and by using a random forest classifier approach, where the UroMark results are derived from a cut off generated from known outcomes of previous samples, addresses many shortcomings of previous assays. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both trails are registered on clinicaltrials.gov. DETECT I: NCT02676180 (18th December 2015). DETECT II: NCT02781428 (11th May 2016).