-
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,
Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy
- MeSH
- biologické markery moč MeSH
- biopsie MeSH
- cystektomie škodlivé účinky metody MeSH
- cystoskopie metody MeSH
- karcinom patologie chirurgie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lokální recidiva nádoru diagnóza chirurgie MeSH
- nádory močového měchýře patologie chirurgie MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
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