Consistencies in Follow-up After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Framework Based on Expert Practices Collaboratively Developed by the European Association of Urology Bladder Cancer Guideline Panels.

Bladder cancer Cystectomy Follow-up Imaging Urothelial carcinoma

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 07 03 2024
revised: 30 04 2024
accepted: 24 05 2024
medline: 22 6 2024
pubmed: 22 6 2024
entrez: 21 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

There is no standardized regimen for follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC). To address this gap, we conducted a multicenter study involving urologist members from the European Association of Urology (EAU) bladder cancer guideline panels. Our objective was to identify consistent post-RC follow-up strategies and develop a practice-based framework based on expert opinion. We surveyed 27 urologist members of the EAU guideline panels for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer using a pre-tested questionnaire with dichotomous responses. The survey inquired about follow-up strategies after RC and the use of risk-adapted strategies. Consistency was defined as >75% affirmative responses for follow-up practices commencing 3 mo after RC. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. We received responses from 96% of the panel members, who provided data from 21 European hospitals. Risk-adapted follow-up is used in 53% of hospitals, with uniform criteria for high-risk (at least ≥pT3 or pN+) and low-risk ([y]pT0/a/1N0) cases. In the absence of agreement for risk-based follow up, a non-risk-adapted framework for follow-up was developed. Higher conformity was observed within the initial 3 yr, followed by a decline in subsequent follow-up. Follow-up was most frequent during the first year, including patient assessments, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. Computed tomography of the chest and abdomen/pelvis was the most common imaging modality, initially at least biannually, and then annually from years 2 to 5. There was a lack of consistency for continuing follow-up beyond 10 yr after RC. This practice-based post-RC follow-up framework developed by EAU bladder cancer experts may serve as a valuable guide for urologists in the absence of prospective randomized studies. We asked urologists from the EAU bladder cancer guideline panels about their patient follow-up after surgical removal of the bladder for bladder cancer. We found that although urologists have varying approaches, there are also common follow-up practices across the panel. We created a practical follow-up framework that could be useful for urologists in their day-to-day practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
There is no standardized regimen for follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC). To address this gap, we conducted a multicenter study involving urologist members from the European Association of Urology (EAU) bladder cancer guideline panels. Our objective was to identify consistent post-RC follow-up strategies and develop a practice-based framework based on expert opinion.
METHODS METHODS
We surveyed 27 urologist members of the EAU guideline panels for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer using a pre-tested questionnaire with dichotomous responses. The survey inquired about follow-up strategies after RC and the use of risk-adapted strategies. Consistency was defined as >75% affirmative responses for follow-up practices commencing 3 mo after RC. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
We received responses from 96% of the panel members, who provided data from 21 European hospitals. Risk-adapted follow-up is used in 53% of hospitals, with uniform criteria for high-risk (at least ≥pT3 or pN+) and low-risk ([y]pT0/a/1N0) cases. In the absence of agreement for risk-based follow up, a non-risk-adapted framework for follow-up was developed. Higher conformity was observed within the initial 3 yr, followed by a decline in subsequent follow-up. Follow-up was most frequent during the first year, including patient assessments, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. Computed tomography of the chest and abdomen/pelvis was the most common imaging modality, initially at least biannually, and then annually from years 2 to 5. There was a lack of consistency for continuing follow-up beyond 10 yr after RC.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
This practice-based post-RC follow-up framework developed by EAU bladder cancer experts may serve as a valuable guide for urologists in the absence of prospective randomized studies.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
We asked urologists from the EAU bladder cancer guideline panels about their patient follow-up after surgical removal of the bladder for bladder cancer. We found that although urologists have varying approaches, there are also common follow-up practices across the panel. We created a practical follow-up framework that could be useful for urologists in their day-to-day practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38906795
pii: S2588-9311(24)00141-X
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.010
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Auteurs

Laura S Mertens (LS)

Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.mertens@nki.nl.

Harman Maxim Bruins (HM)

Department of Urology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Heerlen, The Netherlands.

Roberto Contieri (R)

Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Marek Babjuk (M)

Department of Urology, Teaching Hospital Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Bhavan P Rai (BP)

Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Albert Carrión Puig (AC)

Department of Urology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

Jose Luis Dominguez Escrig (JLD)

Department of Urology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AOU Citta della Salute e della Scienca, Torina School of Medicine, Turin, Italy.

Antoine G van der Heijden (AG)

Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Fredrik Liedberg (F)

Department of Urology, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Institute of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Alberto Martini (A)

Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Alexandra Masson-Lecomte (A)

Department of Urology, Saint-Louis Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Cité University, Paris, France.

Richard P Meijer (RP)

Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Hugh Mostafid (H)

Department of Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, UK.

Yann Neuzillet (Y)

Department of Urology, Foch Hospital, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France.

Benjamin Pradere (B)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.

John Redlef (J)

Patient Representative, European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Bas W G van Rhijn (BWG)

Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Caritas St. Josef Medical Centre, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Matthieu Rouanne (M)

Department of Urology, Foch Hospital, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France.

Morgan Rouprêt (M)

GRC 5, Predictive Onco-Urology, Sorbonne University, Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France.

Sæbjørn Sæbjørnsen (S)

Patient Representative, European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Thomas Seisen (T)

GRC 5, Predictive Onco-Urology, Sorbonne University, Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Francesco Soria (F)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AOU Citta della Salute e della Scienca, Torina School of Medicine, Turin, Italy.

Viktor Soukup (V)

Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

George Thalmann (G)

Department of Urology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Evanguelos Xylinas (E)

Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Paramananthan Mariappan (P)

Edinburgh Bladder Cancer Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.

J Alfred Witjes (J)

Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH