13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article
      , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , DETECT I Trial Collaborators
      The Journal of Urology
      Elsevier
      bladder neoplasms, kidney neoplasms, hematuria, tomography, x-ray computed, cystoscopy, AUA, American Urological Association, CT, computerized tomography, CTU, CT urogram, DETECT, Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test, NHS, National Health Service, NPV, negative predictive value, PPV, positive predictive value, RBUS, renal and bladder ultrasound, UTUC, upper tract urothelial carcinoma

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours.

          It has been 12 yr since the publication of the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumours of the prostate and bladder. During this time, significant new knowledge has been generated about the pathology and genetics of these tumours. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a newly recognized entity in the 2016 WHO classification. In most cases, it represents intraductal spread of aggressive prostatic carcinoma and should be separated from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. New acinar adenocarcinoma variants are microcystic adenocarcinoma and pleomorphic giant cell adenocarcinoma. Modifications to the Gleason grading system are incorporated into the 2016 WHO section on grading of prostate cancer, and it is recommended that the percentage of pattern 4 should be reported for Gleason score 7. The new WHO classification further recommends the recently developed prostate cancer grade grouping with five grade groups. For bladder cancer, the 2016 WHO classification continues to recommend the 1997 International Society of Urological Pathology grading classification. Newly described or better defined noninvasive urothelial lesions include urothelial dysplasia and urothelial proliferation of uncertain malignant potential, which is frequently identified in patients with a prior history of urothelial carcinoma. Invasive urothelial carcinoma with divergent differentiation refers to tumours with some percentage of "usual type" urothelial carcinoma combined with other morphologies. Pathologists should mention the percentage of divergent histologies in the pathology report.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            EAU Guidelines on Non-Muscle-invasive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: Update 2016.

            The European Association of Urology (EAU) panel on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) released an updated version of the guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries.

              Diagnostic X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation exposure to the general population, contributing about 14% of the total annual exposure worldwide from all sources. Although diagnostic X-rays provide great benefits, that their use involves some small risk of developing cancer is generally accepted. Our aim was to estimate the extent of this risk on the basis of the annual number of diagnostic X-rays undertaken in the UK and in 14 other developed countries. We combined data on the frequency of diagnostic X-ray use, estimated radiation doses from X-rays to individual body organs, and risk models, based mainly on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, with population-based cancer incidence rates and mortality rates for all causes of death, using life table methods. Our results indicate that in the UK about 0.6% of the cumulative risk of cancer to age 75 years could be attributable to diagnostic X-rays. This percentage is equivalent to about 700 cases of cancer per year. In 13 other developed countries, estimates of the attributable risk ranged from 0.6% to 1.8%, whereas in Japan, which had the highest estimated annual exposure frequency in the world, it was more than 3%. We provide detailed estimates of the cancer risk from diagnostic X-rays. The calculations involved a number of assumptions and so are inevitably subject to considerable uncertainty. The possibility that we have overestimated the risks cannot be ruled out, but that we have underestimated them substantially seems unlikely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Urol
                J. Urol
                The Journal of Urology
                Elsevier
                0022-5347
                1527-3792
                1 November 2018
                November 2018
                : 200
                : 5
                : 973-980
                Affiliations
                [1]Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2]Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [3]Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom
                [4]University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom
                [5]Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom
                [6]Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
                [7]Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom
                [8]Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom
                [9]Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom
                [10]Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London W1W 7TS, United Kingdom. wei.tan@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                [†]

                Equal study contribution.

                Article
                S0022-5347(18)43045-5
                10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.065
                6179963
                29702097
                5c2c207c-a6bb-49ad-b914-3e971a7bd605
                © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 11 April 2018
                Categories
                Article

                Urology
                bladder neoplasms,kidney neoplasms,hematuria,tomography,x-ray computed,cystoscopy,aua, american urological association,ct, computerized tomography,ctu, ct urogram,detect, detecting bladder cancer using the uromark test,nhs, national health service,npv, negative predictive value,ppv, positive predictive value,rbus, renal and bladder ultrasound,utuc, upper tract urothelial carcinoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article