Search

BackgroundAvailable guidelines on the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are restricted due to the lack of strong evidence–based recommendations. Adequate, well-powered randomized trials are missing due to the rarity of the disease. To overcome this problem, we need alternative study designs to provide generalizable data. ObjectiveThe primary aim of this registry is to provide a real-world overview on patterns of presentation and management of UTUC. Secondary objectives include comparison of outcomes of different treatments and tumor stages and evaluation of compliance with the current European Association of Urology recommendations for UTUC. MethodsFor this observational, international, multicenter, cohort study, clinical data of consecutive patients suspected of having UTUC, irrespective of type of management, will be prospectively collected up to 5 years after inclusion. Data on the patterns of presentation, diagnostics, and treatment as well as short-, mid-, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes will be analyzed. Possible associations between variables, basal characteristics, and outcomes will be tested by multivariable analyses. The methodology will address potential sources of bias and confounders. ResultsThe registry was initiated in November 2014 after obtaining institutional review board approval. Data collection started in December 2014. At the time of submission of this manuscript, 2451 patients from 125 centers from 37 countries were included. Inclusion of patients will be closed 5 years after initiation of the registry. Quality checks will be performed centrally with continuous communication and feedback with the centers to ensure accuracy. The first results are expected in the first trimester of 2020. ConclusionsThis large observational prospective cohort will generate landmark “real-world” data and hypotheses for further studies. We expect these data to optimize the management of UTUC, provide insights on harms and benefits of treatment, and serve as quality control. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02281188. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/15363

BackgroundWith the advancement of imaging technology, focal therapy (FT) has been gaining acceptance for the treatment of select patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP). We aim to provide details of a formal physician consensus on the utilization of FT for patients with CaP who are discontinuing active surveillance (AS).MethodsA 3-stage Delphi consensus on CaP and FT was conducted. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of physicians. An in-person meeting was attended by 17 panelists to formulate the consensus statement.ResultsFifty-six respondents participated in this interdisciplinary consensus study (82% urologist, 16% radiologist, 2% radiation oncology). The participants confirmed that there is a role for FT in men discontinuing AS (48% strongly agree, 39% agree). The benefit of FT over radical therapy for men coming off AS is: less invasive (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve erectile function (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve urinary continence (91%), has fewer side effects (86%), and has early recovery post-treatment (80%). Patients will need to undergo mpMRI of the prostate and/or a saturation biopsy to determine if they are potential candidates for FT. Our limitations include respondent's biases and that the participants of this consensus may not represent the larger medical community.ConclusionsFT can be offered to men coming off AS between the age of 60 to 80 with grade group 2 localized cancer. This consensus from a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, international expert panel provides a contemporary insight utilizing FT for CaP in select patients who are discontinuing AS.

Introduction and Objective: Kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) for upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) has gained increasing interest recently. However, there is limited contemporary data regarding the role of KSS in ureteral urothelial carcinoma. Therefore, we investigated the survival outcomes of ureteral urothelial carcinoma after KSS from a large, prospective international UTUC registry. Methods: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society-Urothelial Carcinomas of the Upper Tract (CROES-UTUC) Registry included patients with UTUC who received KSS or radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) between 2014 and 2019. In this study, we included patients with ureteral UTUC only. Study outcomes included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), upper tract recurrence-free survival (RFS), intravesical RFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the tumor features' differences between groups. Results: Of the 391 patients with ureteral UTUC, 309 (79.0%) received RNU and 82 (21.0%) received KSS by ureteroscopy with laser ablation (n = 28) or segmental resection (n = 54). After PSM, there were no differences in OS (p = 0.525), CSS (p = 0.487), upper tract RFS (p = 0.147), intravesical RFS (p = 0.989), PFS (p = 0.617), and MFS (p = 0.336) between KSS and RNU. There were no significant differences between ureteroscopic ablation and segmental resection in OS, CSS, intravesical RFS, PFS, and MFS with RNU. Proximal ureteral UTUC had worse OS and CSS outcomes than other tumor locations following segmental resection. Conclusions: In patients with ureteral UTUC, no significant differences in long-term survival outcomes were observed between KSS and RNU. Proximal ureteral UTUC had worse survival outcomes over other tumor locations following segmental resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This research investigates whether a diagnostic technique called ureteroscopy (URS), performed before surgery for removing the kidney and ureter, influences the likelihood of cancer recurrence in the bladder in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Data from a multicentre international registry were analysed to compare patients who underwent URS before their surgery with those who did not. The study found that patients who had URS prior to surgery experienced a higher rate of cancer recurrence in the bladder. These results highlight the need for careful consideration of the use of URS in the diagnostic process for UTUC, as it could affect long-term outcomes. This information is crucial for clinicians in optimizing treatment strategies and improving patient care. (1) Introduction: Diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS) is an important component in the workup of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Whether URS was associated with increased recurrence in the bladder was not fully concluded. The current study aimed to evaluate the implication of URS on the incidences of intravesical recurrence following radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) in non-metastatic UTUC patients without prior history of bladder cancer via multi-institutional data. (2) Patients and Methods: Data were obtained from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society Urothelial Carcinomas of the Upper Tract (CROES-UTUC) registry, a prospective, multicentre database. Patients with non-metastatic UTUC treated with RNU were divided into two groups: those undergoing upfront RNU and those having diagnostic URS prior to RNU. Intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRS) was the primary endpoint, evaluated through Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression. Cases with adequate follow-up data were included. (3) Results: The analysis included 269 patients. Of these, 137 (50.9%) received upfront RNU and 132 (49.1%) received pre-RNU URS. The URS group exhibited an inferior 24-month IVRS compared to the upfront RNU group (HR = 1.705, 95% CI = 1.082–2.688; p = 0.020). Multivariate analysis confirmed URS as the only significant predictor of IVR (p = 0.019). Ureteric access sheath usage, flexible ureteroscopy, ureteric biopsy, retrograde contrast studies, and the duration of URS did not significantly affect IVRS. (4) Conclusions: Diagnostic URS prior to RNU was found to be associated with an increased risk of IVR in patients with UTUC. The risk was not significantly influenced by auxiliary procedures during URS. Physicians were advised to meticulously evaluate the necessity of diagnostic URS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo establish a consensus on the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to identify patients for focal therapy.MethodsUrological surgeons, radiologists, and basic researchers, from Europe and North America participated in a consensus meeting about the use of mpMRI in focal therapy of prostate cancer. The consensus process was face-to-face and specific clinical issues were raised and discussed with agreement sought when possible. All participants are listed among the authors. Topics specifically did not include staging of prostate cancer, but rather identifying the optimal requirements for performing MRI, and the current status of optimally performed mpMRI to (i) determine focality of prostate cancer (e.g. localising small target lesions of ≥0.5 mL), (ii) to monitor and assess the outcome of focal ablation therapies, and (iii) to identify the diagnostic advantages of new MRI methods. In addition, the need for transperineal template saturation biopsies in selecting patients for focal therapy was discussed, if a high quality mpMRI is available. In other words, can mpMRI replace the role of transperineal saturation biopsies in patient selection for focal therapy?ResultsConsensus was reached on most key aspects of the meeting; however, on definition of the optimal requirements for mpMRI, there was one dissenting voice. mpMRI is the optimum approach to achieve the objectives needed for focal therapy, if made on a high quality machine (3T with/without endorectal coil or 1.5T with endorectal coil) and judged by an experienced radiologist. Structured and standardised reporting of prostate MRI is paramount. State of the art mpMRI is capable of localising small tumours for focal therapy. State of the art mpMRI is the technique of choice for follow-up of focal ablation.ConclusionsThe present evidence for MRI in focal therapy is limited. mpMRI is not accurate enough to consistently grade tumour aggressiveness. Template-guided saturation biopsies are no longer necessary when a high quality state of the art mpMRI is available; however, suspicious lesions should always be confirmed by (targeted) biopsy.