Symptoms and diagnostic delays in bladder cancer with high risk of recurrence : results from a prospective FinnBladder 9 trial

Purpose To investigate the symptoms and delays in the clinical pathway of bladder cancer (BC). Methods This is a substudy of a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase III study (FinnBladder 9, NCT01675219) where the efficacy of photodynamic diagnosis and 6 weekly optimized mitomycin C instillations are studied in pTa bladder cancer with high risk for recurrence. The data of presenting symptoms and critical time points were prospectively collected, and the effect of factors on delays was analyzed. Results At the time of analysis, 245 patients were randomized. Analysis included 131 patients with primary bladder cancer and their complete data. Sixty-nine percent had smoking history and 67% presented with macroscopic hematuria. Median patient delay (from symptoms to health-care contact) was 7 days. The median general practice delay (from health-care contact to urology referral) was 8 days. Median time from urology referral to cystoscopy was 23 days and from cystoscopy to TUR-BT 21 days. Total time used in the clinical pathway (from symptom to TUR-BT) was 78 days. Current and former smokers had non-significantly shorter patient-related and general practice delays compared to never smokers. TUR-BT delay was significantly shorter in patients with malignant cytology (16 days) compared to patients with benign cytology (21 days, p = 0.03). Conclusions Patient-derived delay was short and most of the delay occurred in the referral centers. The majority had macroscopic hematuria as the initial symptom. Surprisingly, current and past smokers were more prone to contact the health-care system compared to never smokers.Peer reviewe

Randomised Trial of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Following Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radical Prostatectomy Alone in Prostate Cancer Patients with Positive Margins or Extracapsular Extension

Background: It remains unclear whether patients with positive surgical margins or extracapsular extension benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants: This was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group trial. A total of 250 patients were enrolled between April 2004 and October 2012 in eight Finnish hospitals, with pT2 with positive margins or pT3a, pN0, M0 cancer without seminal vesicle invasion. Intervention: A total of 126 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy at 66.6 Gy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival, which we analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, local recurrence, and adverse events were secondary endpoints. Results and limitations: The median follow-up time for patients who were alive when the follow-up ended was 9.3 yr in the adjuvant group and 8.6 yr in the observation group. The 10-yr survival for biochemical recurrence was 82% in the adjuvant group and 61% in the observation group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.26 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.14-0.48], p <0.001), and for overall survival 92% and 87%, respectively (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.29-1.60], p = 0.4). Two and four metastatic cancers occurred, respectively. Out of the 43 patients with biochemical recurrence in the observation group, 37 patients received salvage radiotherapy. In the adjuvant group, 56% experienced grade 3 adverse events, versus 40% in the observation group (p = 0.016). Only one grade 4 adverse event occurred (adjuvant group). A limitation of this study was the number of patients. Conclusions: Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is generally well tolerated and prolongs biochemical recurrence-free survival compared with radical prostatectomy alone in patients with positive margins or extracapsular extension. Patient summary: Radiotherapy given immediately after prostate cancer surgery prolongs prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, but causes more adverse events, when compared with surgery alone. (C) 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin Versus Combination of Epirubicin and Interferon-alpha 2a in Reducing Recurrence of Non-Muscle-invasive Bladder Carcinoma : FinnBladder-6 Study

Peer reviewe

Comprehensive MR Urography Protocol: Equally Good Diagnostic Performance and Enhanced Visibility of the Upper Urinary Tract Compared to Triple-Phase CT Urography.

To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance and the visualization of the upper urinary tract (UUT) using a comprehensive 3.0T- magnetic resonance urography (MRU) protocol versus triple-phase computed tomography urography (CTU).During the study period (January-2014 through December-2015), all consecutive patients in our tertiary university hospital scheduled by a urologist for CTU to exclude UUT malignancy were invited to participate. Diagnostic performance and visualization scores of 3.0T-MRU were compared to CTU using Wilcoxon matched-pairs test.Twenty patients (39 UUT excreting units) were evaluated. 3.0T-MRU and CTU achieved equal diagnostic performances. The benign etiology of seven UUT obstructions was clarified equally with both methods. Another two urinary tract malignant tumors and one benign extraurinary tumor were detected and confirmed. Diagnostic visualization was slightly better in the intrarenal cavity areas with CTU but worsened towards distal ureter. MRU showed consistently slightly better visualization of the ureter. In the comparison, full 100% visualizations were detected in all areas in 93.6% (with 3.0T-MRU) and 87.2% (with CTU) and >75% visualization in 100% (3.0T-MRU) and 93.6% (CTU). Mean CTU effective radiation dose was 9.2 mSv.Comprehensive 3.0T-MRU is an accurate imaging modality achieving comparable performance with CTU; since it does not entail exposure to radiation, it has the potential to become the primary investigation technique in selected patients.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02606513

Percentage visualization of the upper urinary tract.

<p>Percentage visualization of the upper urinary tract.</p

Visualization scores.

<p>Visualization scores.</p

Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) Urography Imaging protocols.

<p>Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) Urography Imaging protocols.</p

MR urography achieves comparable performance compared to CT urography.

<p>Three-dimensional Volume Rendering reconstruction of the urinary tract against a faded background from the images obtained with CT urography (A) and MR urography (B) excretory phases.MR urography achieved a comparable diagnostic performance.</p