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
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

177

Informations 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

Auteurs

Joyce Baard (J)

Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.baard@amsterdamumc.nl.
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.baard@amsterdamumc.nl.

Luigi Cormio (L)

Department of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Ranan Dasgupta (R)

Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Daniele Maruzzi (D)

Department of Urology, S. Maria Degli Angeli Hospital, Pordenone, Italy.

Soroush Rais-Bahrami (S)

Departments of Urology and Radiology, O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Alvaro Serrano (A)

Department of Urology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

Bogdan Geavlete (B)

Department of Urology, Sanador Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.

Stilianos Giannakopoulos (S)

Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

Jean de la Rosette (J)

Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Pilar Laguna (P)

Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH