Unveiling the challenges of UTUC biopsies and cytology: insights from a global real-world practice study.
Biopsy
Cytology
KSS
Upper tract urothelial cancer
Ureteroscopy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2024
20 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
04
10
2023
accepted:
08
02
2024
medline:
20
3
2024
pubmed:
20
3
2024
entrez:
20
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diagnostic ureteroscopy (dURS) is optional in the assessment of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and provides the possibility of obtaining histology. To evaluate endoscopic biopsy techniques and outcomes, we assessed data from patients from the CROES-UTUC registry. The registry includes multicenter prospective collected data on diagnosis and management of patients suspected having UTUC. We assessed 2380 patients from 101 centers. dURS with biopsy was performed in 31.6% of patients. The quality of samples was sufficient for diagnosis in 83.5% of cases. There was no significant association between biopsy techniques and quality (p = 0.458). High-grade biopsy accurately predicted high-grade disease in 95.7% and high-risk stage disease in 86%. In ureteroscopic low-grade tumours, the prediction of subsequent low-grade disease was 66.9% and low-risk stage Ta-disease 35.8%. Ureteroscopic staging correctly predicted non-invasive Ta-disease and ≥ T1 disease in 48.9% and 47.9% of patients, respectively. Cytology outcomes did not provide additional value in predicting tumour grade. Biopsy results adequately predict high-grade and high-risk disease, but approximately one-third of patients are under-staged. Two-thirds of patients with low-grade URS-biopsy have high-risk stage disease, highlighting the need for improved diagnostics to better assess patient risk and guide treatment decisions. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02281188 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 38507109
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04866-w
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-04866-w
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02281188']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
177Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Rouprêt M, Gontero P, Birtle A, Compérat EM, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Liedberg F, et al (2023) Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma EAU guidelines
Coleman JA, Clark PE, Buckley DI, Chang SS, Chou R, Hoffman-Censits J, et al (2023) Diagnosis and management of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma: AUA/SUO guideline (2023). Guideline Statements Diagnosis and Evaluation
Baard J, Shariat SF, Roupret M, Yoshida T, Saita A, Saltirov I et al (2022) Adherence to guideline recommendations in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: an analysis of the CROES–UTUC registry. World J Urol 40(11):2755–2763
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04168-z
pubmed: 36197507
Baard J, Celebi M, de la Rosette J, Alcaraz A, Shariat S, Cormio L et al (2020) Evaluation of patterns of presentation, practice, and outcomes of upper tract urothelial cancer: protocol for an observational, international, multicenter, cohort study by the clinical research office of the endourology society. JMIR Res Protoc. 9(1):e15363
doi: 10.2196/15363
pubmed: 32012106
pmcid: 7007587
Baard J, Cormio L, Cavadas V, Alcaraz A, Shariat SF, de la Rosette J et al (2021) Contemporary patterns of presentation, diagnostics and management of upper tract urothelial cancer in 101 centres: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Global upper tract urothelial carcinoma registry. Curr Opin Urol 31(4):354–362
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000899
pubmed: 34009177
Kleinmann N, Healy KA, Hubosky SG, Margel D, Bibbo M, Bagley DH (2013) Ureteroscopic biopsy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: comparison of basket and forceps. J Endourol 27(12):1450–1454
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0220
pubmed: 24251426
Breda A, Territo A, Sanguedolce F, Basile G, Subiela JD, Vila H et al (2019) Comparison of biopsy devices in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. World J Urol 37(9):1905–1911
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2586-y
Mori K, Katayama S, Laukhtina E, Schuettfort VM, Pradere B, Quhal F et al (2022) Discordance between clinical and pathological staging and grading in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 20(1):95.e1-95.e6
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.10.002
pubmed: 34764007
Freund JE, Duivenvoorden MJC, Sikma BT, Vernooij RWM, Savci-Heijink CD, Legemate JD et al (2020) The diagnostic yield and concordance of ureterorenoscopic biopsies for grading of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a Dutch nationwide analysis. J Endourol 34(9):907–913
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0246
pubmed: 32483982
Subiela JD, Territo A, Mercadé A, Balañà J, Aumatell J, Calderon J et al (2020) Diagnostic accuracy of ureteroscopic biopsy in predicting stage and grade at final pathology in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(11):1989–1997
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.024
pubmed: 32674841
Simon CT, Skala SL, Weizer AZ, Ambani SN, Chinnaiyan AM, Palapattu G et al (2019) Clinical utility and concordance of upper urinary tract cytology and biopsy in predicting clinicopathological features of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Hum Pathol 86:76–84
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.021
pubmed: 30537495
Messer J, Shariat SF, Brien JC, Herman MP, Ng CK, Scherr DS et al (2011) Urinary cytology has a poor performance for predicting invasive or high-grade upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU 108:701–705
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09899.x
Potretzke AM, Knight BA, Vetter JM, Anderson BG, Hardi AC, Bhayani SB et al (2016) Diagnostic utility of selective upper tract urinary cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Urology 96:35–43
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.030
pubmed: 27151340
Wang JK, Tollefson MK, Krambeck AE, Trost LW, Thompson RH (2012) High rate of pathologic upgrading at nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology 79(3):615–619
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.049
pubmed: 22386411