Dataset Information

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Computerized tomography urogram is recommended when investigating patients with hematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography urogram to that of renal and bladder ultrasound for identifying urinary tract cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The DETECT (Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test) I study is a prospective observational study recruiting patients 18 years old or older following presentation with macroscopic or microscopic hematuria at a total of 40 hospitals. All patients underwent cystoscopy and upper tract imaging comprising computerized tomography urogram and/or renal and bladder ultrasound. RESULTS:A total of 3,556 patients with a median age of 68 years were recruited in this study, of whom 2,166 underwent renal and bladder ultrasound, and 1,692 underwent computerized tomography urogram in addition to cystoscopy. The incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer was 11.0%, 1.4% and 0.8%, respectively, in macroscopic hematuria cases. Patients with microscopic hematuria had a 2.7%, 0.4% and 0% incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of renal and bladder ultrasound to detect renal cancer were 85.7% and 99.9% but they were 14.3% and 99.7%, respectively, to detect upper tract urothelial cancer. Renal and bladder ultrasound was poor at identifying renal calculi. Renal and bladder ultrasound sensitivity was lower than that of computerized tomography urogram to detect bladder cancer (each less than 85%). Cystoscopy had 98.3% specificity and 83.9% positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS:Computerized tomography urogram can be safely replaced by renal and bladder ultrasound in patients who have microscopic hematuria. The incidence of upper tract urothelial cancer is 0.8% in patients with macroscopic hematuria and computerized tomography urogram is recommended. Patients with suspected renal calculi require noncontrast renal tract computerized tomography. Imaging cannot replace cystoscopy to diagnose bladder cancer.

SUBMITTER: Tan WS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6179963 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?

Tan Wei Shen WS Sarpong Rachael R Khetrapal Pramit P Rodney Simon S Mostafid Hugh H Cresswell Joanne J Hicks James J Rane Abhay A Henderson Alastair A Watson Dawn D Cherian Jacob J Williams Norman N Brew-Graves Chris C Feber Andrew A Kelly John D JD

The Journal of urology 20180424 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Computerized tomography urogram is recommended when investigating patients with hematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography urogram to that of renal and bladder ultrasound for identifying urinary tract cancer.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The DETECT (Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test) I study is a prospective observational study recruiting patients 18 years old or older following pres ...[more]

PMID: 29702097

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAsymptomatic microscopic hematuria (AMH) is highly prevalent and may signal occult genitourinary (GU) malignant abnormality. Common diagnostic approaches differ in their costs and effectiveness in detecting cancer. Given the low prevalence of GU malignant abnormality among patients with AMH, it is important to quantify the cost implications of detecting cancer for each approach.ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness, costs, and incremental cost per cancer detected (ICCD) for 4 common diagnostic approaches evaluating AMH.Design, setting, and participantsA decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using inputs from the medical literature. PubMed searches were performed to identify relevant literature for all key model inputs, each of which was derived from the clinical study with the most robust data and greatest applicability. Analysis included adult patients with AMH on routine urinalysis with subgroups of high-risk patients (males, smokers, age ≥50 years) seen in the primary care or urologic referral setting.InterventionsFour diagnostic approaches were evaluated relative to the reference case of no evaluation: (1) computed tomography (CT) alone; (2) cystoscopy alone; (3) CT and cystoscopy combined; and (4) renal ultrasound and cystoscopy combined.Main outcomes and measuresAt termination of the diagnostic period, cancers detected, costs (payer perspective), and ICCD per 10 000 patients evaluated for AMH.ResultsOf the 4 diagnostic approaches analyzed, CT alone was dominated by all other strategies, detecting 221 cancers at a cost of $9 300 000. Ultrasound and cystoscopy detected 245 cancers and was most cost-effective with an ICCD of $53 810. Replacing ultrasound with CT detected just 1 additional cancer at an ICCD of $6 480 484. Ultrasound and cystoscopy remained the most cost-effective approach in subgroup analysis. The model was not sensitive to any inputs within the proposed ranges. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ultrasound and cystoscopy was the dominant strategy in 100% of simulations.Conclusions and relevanceThe combination of renal ultrasound and cystoscopy is the most cost-effective among 4 diagnostic approaches for the initial evaluation of AMH. The use of ultrasound in lieu of CT as the first-line diagnostic strategy will optimize cancer detection and reduce costs associated with evaluation of AMH. Given our findings, we need to critically evaluate the appropriateness of our current clinical practices, and potentially alter our guidelines to reflect the most effective screening strategies for patients with AMH.

Project description:PurposeIn our conventional image registration workflow, the four-dimensional (4D) CBCT was directly registered to the reference helical CT (HCT) using a dual registration approach within the Elekta XVI software. In this study, we proposed a new HCT-CBCT auto-registration strategy using a previously registered CBCT (CBCTpre) as the reference image and tested its clinical feasibility.MethodsFrom a previous CBCT session, the registered average 4D CBCT was selected as CBCTpre and the HCT-CBCTpre registration vector from the clinician's manual registration result was recorded. In the new CBCT session, auto-registration was performed between the new average 4D CBCT (CBCTtx) and CBCTpre (CBCTpre-CBCTtx). The overall HCT-CBCTtx registration result was then derived by combing the results from two registrations (i.e., HCT-CBCTpre + CBCTpre-CBCTtx). The results from the proposed method were compared with clinician's manually adjusted HCT-CBCTtx registration results ("ground truth") to evaluate its accuracy using a test dataset consisting of 32 challenging registration cases.ResultsThe uncertainty of the proposed auto-registration method was -0.1 ± 0.5, 0.1 ± 1.0, and -0.1 ± 0.7 mm in three translational directions (lateral, longitudinal, and vertical) and 0.0° ± 0.9°, 0.3° ± 0.9°, and 0.4° ± 0.7° in three rotation directions, respectively. Two patients (6.3%) had translational uncertainty > 2 mm (max = 3.1 mm) and both occurred in the longitudinal direction. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of the conventional direct HCT-CBCTtx auto-registration was -0.4 ± 2.6, -0.2 ± 7.4, -1.4 ± 3.6 mm for translations and -0.3° ± 1.2°, 0.0° ± 1.6°, and 0.1 ± 1.1° for rotations. Eleven patients (34.4%) had translation uncertainty > 2 mm (max = 26.2 mm) in at least one direction. Accuracy in translation was improved with the new method, while rotation accuracy stayed in the same order.ConclusionWe demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating prior clinical registration knowledge into the online HCT-CBCT registration process. The proposed auto-registration method provides a quick and reliable starting solution for online HCT-CBCT registration.

Project description:BackgroundAs part of their living kidney donor assessment, all living donor candidates complete a computed tomography (CT) angiogram, but some also receive a nuclear renogram for split renal function (SRF%).ObjectiveWe considered whether split renal volume (SRV%) assessed by CT can predict SRF%.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingLiving donor candidates undergoing evaluation as potential living kidney donors.PatientsLiving donor candidates who received both a nuclear renogram for split function and CT for SRV as part of their living donor work-up.MeasurementsSplit renal volume from CT scans and SRF from nuclear renography.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, abstracting data and digitizing plots where possible. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We added data from donor candidates assessed in London, Ontario from 2013 to 2016. We used fixed and random-effects models to pool Fisher's z-transformed Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). We conducted random-effects meta-regression on digitized and aggregate data. Studies were restricted to living kidney donors or living donor candidates.ResultsAfter pooling 19 studies (n = 1479), we obtained a pooled correlation of r = 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61-0.82). By linear regression using individual-level data, we observed a 0.76% (95% CI = 0.71-0.81) increase in SRF% for every 1% increase in SRV%. Split renal volume had a specificity of 88% for discriminating SRF at a threshold that could influence the decision of which kidney is to be removed (between-kidney difference ≥10%). Predonation SRV and SRF both moderately predicted kidney function 6 to 12 months after donation: r = 0.75 for SRV and r = 0.73 for SRF; Δr = 0.05 (-0.02, 0.13).LimitationsMost studies were retrospective and measured SRV and SRF only on selected living donor candidates. Efficiency gains in removing the SRF from the evaluation will depend on the transplant program.ConclusionSplit renal volume has the potential to replace SRF for some candidates. However, it is uncertain whether it can do so reliably and routinely across different transplant centers. The impact on clinical decision-making needs to be assessed in well-designed prospective studies.Trial registrationThe digitized data are registered with Mendeley Data (doi10.17632/dyn2bfgxxj.2).

Dataset Information

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?

Publications

Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets