1. |
- Babjuk, Marko, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (Ta, T1, and Carcinoma in Situ)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 81:1, s. 75-94
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) has released an updated version of the guidelines on non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Objective: To present the 2021 EAU guidelines on NMIBC. Evidence acquisition: A broad and comprehensive scoping exercise covering all areas of the NMIBC guidelines since the 2020 version was performed. Databases covered by the search included Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries. Previous guidelines were updated, and the level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned. Evidence synthesis: Tumours staged as Ta, T1 and carcinoma in situ (CIS) are grouped under the heading of NMIBC. Diagnosis depends on cystoscopy and histological evaluation of tissue obtained via transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) for papillary tumours or via multiple bladder biopsies for CIS. For papillary lesions, a complete TURB is essential for the patient's prognosis and correct diagnosis. In cases for which the initial resection is incomplete, there is no muscle in the specimen, or a T1 tumour is detected, a second TURB should be performed within 2–6 wk. The risk of progression may be estimated for individual patients using the 2021 EAU scoring model. On the basis of their individual risk of progression, patients are stratified as having low, intermediate, high, or very high risk, which is pivotal to recommending adjuvant treatment. For patients with tumours presumed to be at low risk and for small papillary recurrences detected more than 1 yr after a previous TURB, one immediate chemotherapy instillation is recommended. Patients with an intermediate-risk tumour should receive 1 yr of full-dose intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) immunotherapy or instillations of chemotherapy for a maximum of 1 yr. For patients with high-risk tumours, full-dose intravesical BCG for 1–3 yr is indicated. For patients at very high risk of tumour progression, immediate radical cystectomy should be considered. Cystectomy is also recommended for BCG-unresponsive tumours. The extended version of the guidelines is available on the EAU website at https://uroweb.org/guideline/non-muscle-invasive-bladder-cancer/. Conclusions: These abridged EAU guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC for incorporation into clinical practice. Patient summary: The European Association of Urology has released updated guidelines on the classification, risk factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, and treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The recommendations are based on the literature up to 2020, with emphasis on the highest level of evidence. Classification of patients as having low, intermediate, or and high risk is essential in deciding on suitable treatment. Surgical removal of the bladder should be considered for tumours that do not respond to bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment and tumours with the highest risk of progression.
|
|
2. |
- Beijert, Irene J., et al.
(författare)
-
International Opinions on Grading of Urothelial Carcinoma : A Survey Among European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology Members
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - 2666-1691. ; 52, s. 154-165
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Grade of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is an important prognostic factor for progression. Currently, two World Health Organization (WHO) classification systems (WHO1973, categories: grade 1–3, and WHO2004 categories: papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential [PUNLMP], low-grade [LG], high-grade [HG] carcinoma) are used. Objective: To ask the European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) members regarding their current practice and preferences of grading systems. Design, setting, and participants: A web-based, anonymous questionnaire with ten questions on grading of NMIBC was created. The members of EAU and ISUP were invited to complete an online survey by the end of 2021. Thirteen experts had previously answered the same questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The submitted answers from 214 ISUP members, 191 EAU members, and 13 experts were analyzed. Results and limitations: Currently, 53% use only the WHO2004 system and 40% use both systems. According to most respondents, PUNLMP is a rare diagnosis with management similar to Ta-LG carcinoma. The majority (72%) would consider reverting back to WHO1973 if grading criteria were more detailed. Separate reporting of WHO1973-G3 within WHO2004-HG would influence clinical decisions for Ta and/or T1 tumors according the majority (55%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier (41%) or a three-tier (41%) grading system. The current WHO2004 grading system is supported by a minority (20%), whereas nearly half (48%) supported a hybrid three- or four-tier grading system composed of both WHO1973 and WHO2004. The survey results of the experts were comparable with ISUP and EAU respondents. Conclusions: Both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 grading system are still widely used. Even though opinions on the future of bladder cancer grading were strongly divided, there was limited support for WHO1973 and WHO2004 in their current formats, while the hybrid (three-tier) grading system with LG, HG-G2, and HG-G3 as categories could be considered the most promising alternative. Patient summary: Grading of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a matter of ongoing debate and lacks international consensus. We surveyed urologists and pathologists of European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology on their preferences regarding NMIBC grading to generate a multidisciplinary dialogue. Both the “old” World Health Organization (WHO) 1973 and the “new” WHO2004 grading schemes are still used widely. However, continuation of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 system showed limited support, while a hybrid grading system composed of both the WHO1973 and the WHO2004 classification system may be considered a promising alternative.
|
|
3. |
- Lopez-Beltran, Antonio, et al.
(författare)
-
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Current Issues in Bladder Cancer : Working Group 3: Subcategorization of T1 Bladder Cancer
- 2024
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. - 0147-5185. ; 48:1, s. 24-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Emerging data on T1 bladder cancer subcategorization (aka substaging) suggests a correlation with oncological outcomes. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) organized the 2022 consensus conference in Basel, Switzerland to focus on current issues in bladder cancer and tasked working group 3 to make recommendations for T1 subcategorization in transurethral bladder resections. For this purpose, the ISUP developed and circulated a survey to their membership querying approaches to T1 bladder cancer subcategorization. In particular, clinical relevance, pathological reporting, and endorsement of T1 subcategorization in the daily practice of pathology were surveyed. Of the respondents of the premeeting survey, about 40% do not routinely report T1 subcategory. We reviewed literature on bladder T1 subcategorization, and screened selected articles for clinical performance and practicality of T1 subcategorization methods. Published literature offered evidence of the clinical rationale for T1 subcategorization and at the conference consensus (83% of conference attendants) was obtained to report routinely T1 subcategorization of transurethral resections. Semiquantitative T1 subcategorization was favored (37%) over histoanatomic methods (4%). This is in line with literature findings on practicality and prognostic impact, that is, a shift of publications from histoanatomic to semiquantitative methods or by reports incorporating both methodologies is apparent over the last decade. However, 59% of participants had no preference for either methodology. They would add a comment in the report briefly stating applied method, interpretation criteria (including cutoff), and potential limitations. When queried on the terminology of T1 subcategorization, 34% and 20% of participants were in favor of T1 (microinvasive) versus T1 (extensive) or T1 (focal) versus T1 (nonfocal), respectively.
|
|
4. |
- Rouprêt, Morgan, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma : 2023 Update
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 84:1, s. 49-64
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has updated the guidelines to aid clinicians in evidence-based management of UTUC. Objective: To provide an overview of the EAU guidelines on UTUC as an aid to clinicians. Evidence acquisition: The recommendations provided in these guidelines are based on a review of the literature via a systematic search of the PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Data were searched using the following keywords: urinary tract cancer, urothelial carcinomas, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder cancer, chemotherapy, ureteroscopy, nephroureterectomy, neoplasm, (neo)adjuvant treatment, instillation, recurrence, risk factors, metastatic, immunotherapy, and survival. The results were assessed by a panel of experts. Evidence synthesis: Even though data are accruing, for many areas there is still insufficient high-level evidence to provide strong recommendations. Patient stratification on the basis of histology and clinical examination (including imaging) and assessment of patients at risk of Lynch syndrome will aid management. Kidney-sparing management should be offered as a primary treatment option to patients with low-risk UTUC and two functional kidneys. In particular, for patients with high-risk or metastatic UTUC, new treatment options have become available. In high-risk UTUC, platinum-based chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy, and adjuvant nivolumab for unfit or patients who decline chemotherapy, are options. For metastatic disease, gemcitabine/carboplatin chemotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients. Patients with PD-1/PD-L1–positive tumours should be offered a checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab or atezolizumab). Conclusions: These guidelines contain information on the management of individual patients according to the current best evidence. Urologists should take into account the specific clinical characteristics of each patient when determining the optimal treatment regimen according to the risk stratification of these tumours. Patient summary: Cancer of the upper urinary tract is rare, but because 60% of these tumours are invasive at diagnosis, timely and appropriate diagnosis is most important. A number of known risk factors exist.
|
|
5. |
- Witjes, J. Alfred, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer – An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort : Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 77:2, s. 223-250
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
|
|