Implementing a Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor to Standardize Outcome Reporting: When High-quality Resection Could Influence Oncological Outcomes.
Diagnosis
Endoscopy
Resection
Treatment
Urothelial cancer
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
accepted:
06
09
2022
entrez:
2
1
2023
pubmed:
3
1
2023
medline:
3
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT) have reported controversial results. In particular, the 1-yr recurrence rate ranged from 5% to 40% for ERBT and from 11% to 31% for cTURBT. We provide an updated analysis of an RCT comparing the 1-yr recurrence rate for ERBT versus cTURBT for a cohort of 219 patients comprising 123 (56.2%) in the ERBT group and 96 (43.8%) in the cTURBT group. At 1 yr, 11 patients in the ERBT group and 12 in the cTURBT group experienced recurrence. The heterogeneity in recurrence observed in other RCTs could be explained by the scarce and heterogeneous adoption of tools and techniques that have been proved to lower the recurrence rate, supporting the need for implementation of a TURBT checklist. This prompted us to create a checklist of items for RCTs to standardize how TURBT is performed in trials, facilitate comparison between studies, assess the applicability of results in real-life practice, and provide a push towards high-quality resections to improve oncological outcomes. The checklist could have utility as a user-friendly guide for reporting TURBT procedures to improve our understanding of trials involving this procedure. We compared the recurrence rate at 1 year for bladder cancer treated with two different approaches to remove bladder tumors in our center. The rates were comparable for the two groups. Other studies have found widely differing recurrence rates, so we propose use of a checklist to standardize these procedures and provide more consistent outcomes for patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36588772
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.025
pii: S2666-1683(22)02711-2
pmc: PMC9795511
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
24-27Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Références
BJU Int. 2022 Dec;130(6):730-740
pubmed: 35238145
Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Aug;5(4):440-448
pubmed: 35618567
Eur Urol. 2010 May;57(5):843-9
pubmed: 19524354
J Urol. 2006 Jul;176(1):407; author reply 407-8
pubmed: 16753451
BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):276-282
pubmed: 27444991
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):231-44
pubmed: 26091833
Eur Urol. 2020 Oct;78(4):546-569
pubmed: 32389447
Eur Urol. 2022 Jan;81(1):75-94
pubmed: 34511303
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 8;4:CD014887
pubmed: 35393644
Eur Urol. 2018 Jun;73(6):925-933
pubmed: 29523366