The Journal of urology · 2020
The Impact of Ureteroscopy following Computerized Tomography Urography in the Management of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gallioli Andrea, Territo Angelo, Mercadé Asier, Fontana Matteo, Boissier Romain, Gaya Josep Maria, Emiliani Esteban, Sánchez-Puy Antoni, Martínez Maria José, Palou Joan, Breda Alberto
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We report the reliability of computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy in the diagnosis and management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to November 2018 we prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed 244 cases of ureteroscopy with available preoperative computerized tomography urography. Computerized tomography urography was categorized as positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative. Correspondence between imaging, ureteroscopy and histology was analyzed. The therapeutic indication, based on 2020 EAU Guidelines and patient clinical data, was recorded before and after ureteroscopy. Cohen's Kappa was used for agreement analysis. Logistic regression was used for prediction of positive ureteroscopy.
RESULTS: Ureteroscopy was positive for upper tract urothelial carcinoma in 107/115 (93%), 48/77 (62.3%), 15/27 (55.6%) and 12/25 (48%) cases with positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative computerized tomography urography, respectively. On cytohistology the result was confirmed in 164/182 (90.1%) cases. The positive predictive value of a filling defect, stenosis, thickening and hydronephrosis on computerized tomography urography was 87.7% (121/138 cases), 65.6% (21/32), 69.6% (64/92) and 79.7% (59/74), respectively. On multivariate analysis a filling defect (95% CI 2.76-11.5, OR 5.63, p <0.0001) or hydronephrosis (1.04-6.18, OR 2.52, p=0.04) was associated with ureteroscopy outcome. Among cases with positive computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy, the lesions differed in dimensions (20/107), number (14/107) and site (11/107), for a total of 45/107 (42.1%) cases. The indication of elective treatment changed after ureteroscopy in 37/76 (48.1%) cases (Kappa=0.31), as 17/28 (60.7%), 11/20 (55%) and 11/28 (39.2%) indications were confirmed for endoscopic management, ureterectomy and nephroureterectomy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The complementary use of computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy in the diagnostic workup of upper tract urothelial carcinoma should be evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to November 2018 we prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed 244 cases of ureteroscopy with available preoperative computerized tomography urography. Computerized tomography urography was categorized as positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative. Correspondence between imaging, ureteroscopy and histology was analyzed. The therapeutic indication, based on 2020 EAU Guidelines and patient clinical data, was recorded before and after ureteroscopy. Cohen's Kappa was used for agreement analysis. Logistic regression was used for prediction of positive ureteroscopy.
RESULTS: Ureteroscopy was positive for upper tract urothelial carcinoma in 107/115 (93%), 48/77 (62.3%), 15/27 (55.6%) and 12/25 (48%) cases with positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative computerized tomography urography, respectively. On cytohistology the result was confirmed in 164/182 (90.1%) cases. The positive predictive value of a filling defect, stenosis, thickening and hydronephrosis on computerized tomography urography was 87.7% (121/138 cases), 65.6% (21/32), 69.6% (64/92) and 79.7% (59/74), respectively. On multivariate analysis a filling defect (95% CI 2.76-11.5, OR 5.63, p <0.0001) or hydronephrosis (1.04-6.18, OR 2.52, p=0.04) was associated with ureteroscopy outcome. Among cases with positive computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy, the lesions differed in dimensions (20/107), number (14/107) and site (11/107), for a total of 45/107 (42.1%) cases. The indication of elective treatment changed after ureteroscopy in 37/76 (48.1%) cases (Kappa=0.31), as 17/28 (60.7%), 11/20 (55%) and 11/28 (39.2%) indications were confirmed for endoscopic management, ureterectomy and nephroureterectomy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The complementary use of computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy in the diagnostic workup of upper tract urothelial carcinoma should be evaluated.