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

Purpose: Urothelial bladder cancer (UCB) care requires frequent follow-up cystoscopy and surgery. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a probe-based optical technique that can provide real-time microscopic evaluation with the potential for outpatient grading of UCB. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability for the grading of UCB with CLE during flexible cystoscopy (fCLE). Methods: Participants scheduled for transurethral resection of papillary bladder tumors were prospectively included for intra-operative fCLE. Exclusion criteria were flat lesions, fluorescein allergy or pregnancy. Two independent observers evaluated fCLE, classifying tumors as low- or high-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC/HGUC) or benign. Interobserver agreement was calculated with Cohens kappa (κ) and diagnostic accuracy with 2 × 2 tables. Histopathology was the reference test. Results: Histopathology of 34 lesions revealed 14 HGUC, 14 LGUC and 6 benign tumors. Diagnostic yield for fCLE was 80–85% with a κ of 0.75. Respectively, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV were: for benign tumors 0–20%, 96–100%, unmeasureable-50% and 87%, for LGUC 57–64%, 41–58%, 44–53% and 54–69% and for HGUC 38–57%, 56–68%, 38–57% and 56–68%, with an interobserver agreement of κ 0.61. Conclusion: fCLE is currently insufficient to grade UCB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction There are three common treatment options for kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). The choice of treatment is based on stone- and patient-related characteristics. However, some stones are eligible for several approaches and the decision is made based on patient and urologist's preferences. This study evaluates which approach has the highest workload. Material and methods Between March and August 2022, five members of the Amsterdam Endourology Research Group collected data from 22 ESWL, 31 URS and 22 PNL procedures. After each procedure, the SURG-TLX questionnaire was completed by the surgeon to evaluate workload. Six dimensions were scored for each procedure, including: mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, task complexity, situational stress, and distractions. The total workload, and the median for each dimension, was calculated and compared for the three treatments. Results ESWL scored significantly lower than URS for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distraction and total workload. However, task complexity did not differ significantly between the two techniques. Compared with PNL, ESWL scored significantly lower for all dimensions. Finally, PNL received significantly higher scores for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distractions and total workload than URS. Only task complexity showed no significant difference between both groups. Conclusions Urologists perceive the highest workload during PNL, followed by URS and finally ESWL. A follow-up study is needed to identify stressors that increase perceived workload with the purpose to address these variables and as final objective to improve urologists' workload, patient safety and treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods: A three‐stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope‐ and user‐related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two‐step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Fluoroscopy is routinely used during ureterorenoscopy. According to the 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable' (ALARA) principle, radiation exposure should be kept as low as reasonably achievable to decrease the risk of negative long-term effects of radiation for patients and medical staff. This study aims to assess if operator-controlled imaging during flexible ureterorenoscopy for nephrolithiasis could reduce fluoroscopy time when compared to radiographer-controlled imaging. Material and methods This study was a bicentric, retrospective comparison between patients treated for nephrolithiasis with flexible ureterorenoscopy with either operator-controlled imaging or radiographer-controlled imaging. A total of 100 patients were included, 50 were treated with operator-controlled imaging and 50 with radiographer-controlled imaging. Patients undergoing flexible ureterorenoscopy with a total stone burden <20 mm and data on radiation exposure were included. Patient characteristics, stone characteristics, surgical details and fluoroscopy time were recorded for each patient and both groups were compared. Patient data were expressed as median. A 2-sided p-value <0.005 was considered statistically significant. Results This study found no significant differences between both groups regarding the patient and stone characteristics. However, it found a significant shorter fluoroscopy time in the operator-controlled imaging group of 33.5 seconds (IQR 16.0-70.0) compared to 57.0 seconds (IQR 36.8-95.3) in the radiographer-controlled imaging group (p = 0.001). Conclusions This study shows that operator-controlled imaging in flexible ureterorenoscopy could reduce fluoroscopy time when compared to radiographer-controlled imaging. Operator-controlled imaging might therefore allow urologists to perform ureterorenoscopy with greater independence while additionally reducing fluoroscopy time and its consequent negative effects for medical staff and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]