• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Follow-up after surgical treatment of bladder cancer: a critical analysis of the literature

V. Soukup, M. Babjuk, J. Bellmunt, G. Dalbagni, G. Giannarini, OW. Hakenberg, H. Herr, E. Lechevallier, MJ. Ribal,

. 2012 ; 62 (2) : 290-302.

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc13000800

CONTEXT: Follow-up of patients treated for bladder cancer (BCa) is of great importance for both non-muscle-invasive BCa (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive BCa (MIBC) because of the high incidence of recurrence and progression. The schedule and methods of follow-up should reflect the individual clinical situation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the existing evidence for intensity and duration of follow-up recommendations in patients after surgical treatment of BCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for published data on the follow-up of patients with NMIBC and MIBC after radical cystectomy (RC). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Follow-up in patients with NMIBC is necessary because of the high probability of tumour recurrence and the risk of progression. Cystoscopy plus cytology are the standard methods for follow-up. Cystoscopy should be done 3 mo after the transurethral resection in every patient, and the frequency after that depends on the individual recurrence/progression risk. Cytology should be used as an adjunctive method to cystoscopy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. None of the currently available urinary markers or imaging methods can substitute for cystoscopy-based follow-up. High-risk NMIBC patients require regular lifelong upper urinary tract monitoring. Follow-up in MIBC is based on the fact that early detection of recurrence after RC allows for timely treatment with the aim of improving outcomes. Patients with extravesical and lymph node-positive disease should have the most intensive follow-up because of the highest recurrence risk. Routine upper urinary tract imaging is advisable for all patients and should continue in the long term. Follow-up also allows for early detection of urinary diversion-related complications, the rate of which increases with time. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up in BCa is necessary for diagnosing recurrence and progression, as well as for evaluating complications after radical treatment. Since randomised studies investigating the most appropriate follow-up schedule are lacking, most recommendations are based on only the retrospective experience. Nonetheless, reasonable recommendations can be made until further prospective randomised studies testing different follow-up schedules have been performed.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc13000800
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20130109122343.0
007      
ta
008      
130108s2012 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.008 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)22609313
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Soukup, Viktor $u Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Praha, Praha, Czech Republic. viktor.soukup@seznam.cz
245    10
$a Follow-up after surgical treatment of bladder cancer: a critical analysis of the literature / $c V. Soukup, M. Babjuk, J. Bellmunt, G. Dalbagni, G. Giannarini, OW. Hakenberg, H. Herr, E. Lechevallier, MJ. Ribal,
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: Follow-up of patients treated for bladder cancer (BCa) is of great importance for both non-muscle-invasive BCa (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive BCa (MIBC) because of the high incidence of recurrence and progression. The schedule and methods of follow-up should reflect the individual clinical situation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the existing evidence for intensity and duration of follow-up recommendations in patients after surgical treatment of BCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for published data on the follow-up of patients with NMIBC and MIBC after radical cystectomy (RC). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Follow-up in patients with NMIBC is necessary because of the high probability of tumour recurrence and the risk of progression. Cystoscopy plus cytology are the standard methods for follow-up. Cystoscopy should be done 3 mo after the transurethral resection in every patient, and the frequency after that depends on the individual recurrence/progression risk. Cytology should be used as an adjunctive method to cystoscopy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. None of the currently available urinary markers or imaging methods can substitute for cystoscopy-based follow-up. High-risk NMIBC patients require regular lifelong upper urinary tract monitoring. Follow-up in MIBC is based on the fact that early detection of recurrence after RC allows for timely treatment with the aim of improving outcomes. Patients with extravesical and lymph node-positive disease should have the most intensive follow-up because of the highest recurrence risk. Routine upper urinary tract imaging is advisable for all patients and should continue in the long term. Follow-up also allows for early detection of urinary diversion-related complications, the rate of which increases with time. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up in BCa is necessary for diagnosing recurrence and progression, as well as for evaluating complications after radical treatment. Since randomised studies investigating the most appropriate follow-up schedule are lacking, most recommendations are based on only the retrospective experience. Nonetheless, reasonable recommendations can be made until further prospective randomised studies testing different follow-up schedules have been performed.
650    _2
$a biologické markery $x moč $7 D015415
650    _2
$a biopsie $7 D001706
650    _2
$a karcinom $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D002277
650    _2
$a cystektomie $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D015653
650    _2
$a cystoskopie $x metody $7 D003558
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $7 D009364
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a nádory močového měchýře $x patologie $x chirurgie $7 D001749
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Babjuk, Marko
700    1_
$a Bellmunt, Joaquim
700    1_
$a Dalbagni, Guido
700    1_
$a Giannarini, Gianluca
700    1_
$a Hakenberg, Oliver W
700    1_
$a Herr, Harry
700    1_
$a Lechevallier, Eric
700    1_
$a Ribal, Maria J
773    0_
$w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 62, č. 2 (2012), s. 290-302
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22609313 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20130108 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20130109122448 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 963582 $s 798964
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2012 $b 62 $c 2 $d 290-302 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20130108

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...