The Impact of the Extent of Lymphadenectomy on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer : A Systematic Review

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Conflict of Evidence:Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree

Financial disclosures: Richard J. Sylvester certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None. Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None.Peer reviewedPostprin

Implications of micropapillary urothelial carcinoma variant on prognosis following radical cystectomy: A multi-institutional investigation

Contains fulltext : 201055.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Primary Urethral Carcinoma-2020 Update

CONTEXT Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a rare cancer accounting for <1% of all genitourinary malignancies. OBJECTIVE To provide updated practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of PUC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic search interrogating Ovid (Medline), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Urothelial carcinoma of the urethra is the predominant histological type of PUC (54-65%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (16-22%) and adenocarcinoma (10-16%). Diagnosis of PUC depends on urethrocystoscopy with biopsy and urinary cytology. Pathological staging and grading are based on the tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) classification and the 2016 World Health Organization grading systems. Local tumour extent and regional lymph nodes are assessed by magnetic resonance imaging, and the presence of distant metastases is assessed by computed tomography of the thorax/abdomen and pelvis. For all patients with localised distal tumours (≤T2N0M0), partial urethrectomy or urethra-sparing surgery is a valid treatment option, provided that negative intraoperative surgical margins can be achieved. Prostatic Ta-Tis-T1 PUC can be treated with repeat transurethral resection of the prostate and bacillus Calmette-Guérin. In prostatic or proximal ≥ T2N0 disease, neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy should be considered prior to radical surgery. All patients with locally advanced disease (≥T3N0-2M0) should be discussed within a multidisciplinary team. In men with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma, curative radiotherapy combined with radiosensitising chemotherapy can be offered for definitive treatment and genital preservation. In patients with local urethral recurrence, salvage surgery or radiotherapy can be offered. For patients with distant metastatic disease, systemic therapy based on tumour characteristics can be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS These updated European Association of Urology guidelines provide up-to-date guidance for the contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with suspected PUC. PATIENT SUMMARY Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a very rare, but aggressive disease. These updated European Association of Urology guidelines provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians treating patients with PUC

Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer

Context: Invasive bladder cancer is a frequently occurring disease with a high mortality rate despite optimal treatment. The European Association of Urology (EAU) Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer (MIBC) Guidelines are updated yearly and provides information to optimise diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of this patient population. Objective: To provide a summary of the EAU guidelines for physicians and patients confronted with muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Evidence acquisition: An international multidisciplinary panel of bladder cancer experts reviewed and discussed the results of a comprehensive literature search of several databases covering all sections of the guidelines. The panel defined levels of evidence and grades of recommendation according to an established classification system. Evidence synthesis: Epidemiology and aetiology of bladder cancer are discussed. The proper diagnostic pathway, including demands for pathology and imaging, is outlined. Several treatment options, including bladder-sparing treatments and combinations of treatment modalities (different forms of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy) are described. Sequencing of these modalities is discussed. Potential indications and contraindications, such as comorbidity, are related to treatment choice. There is a new paragraph on organ-sparing approaches, both in men and in women, and on minimal invasive surgery. Recommendations for chemotherapy in fit and unfit patients are provided including second-line options. Finally, a follow-up schedule is provided. Conclusions: The current summary of the EAU Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer Guidelines provides an up-to-date overview of the available literature and evidence dealing with diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with metastatic and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patient summary: Bladder cancer is an important disease with a high mortality rate. These updated guidelines help clinicians refine the diagnosis and select the appropriate therapy and follow-up for patients with metastatic and muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Erratum to “European Association of Urology (EAU) Prognostic Factor Risk Groups for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and WHO 1973 Classification Systems for Grade: An Update from the EAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel” [Eur. Urol. 79(4) (2021) 480–488, (S0302283820310198), (10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.033)]

The publisher regrets that, of the affiliations of the senior author Bas W.G. van Rhijn, only two of the four were shown in the published version of the article. The four correct affiliations, which were also already listed in the original submission to European Urology, now appear above in this erratum. The correct affiliations for author Bas W.G. van Rhijn is updated as above. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

European Association of Urology (EAU) Prognostic Factor Risk Groups for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and WHO 1973 Classification Systems for Grade: An Update from the EAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel[Formula presented]

Background: The European Association of Urology (EAU) prognostic factor risk groups for non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are used to provide recommendations for patient treatment after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). They do not, however, take into account the widely used World Health Organization (WHO) 2004/2016 grading classification and are based on patients treated in the 1980s. Objective: To update EAU prognostic factor risk groups using the WHO 1973 and 2004/2016 grading classifications and identify patients with the lowest and highest probabilities of progression. Design, setting, and participants: Individual patient data for primary NMIBC patients were collected from the institutions of the members of the EAU NMIBC guidelines panel. Intervention: Patients underwent TURBT followed by intravesical instillations at the physician's discretion. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models were fitted to the primary endpoint, the time to progression to muscle-invasive disease or distant metastases. Patients were divided into four risk groups: low-, intermediate-, high-, and a new, very high-risk group. The probabilities of progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results and limitations: A total of 3401 patients treated with TURBT ± intravesical chemotherapy were included. From the multivariable analyses, tumor stage, WHO 1973/2004–2016 grade, concomitant carcinoma in situ, number of tumors, tumor size, and age were used to form four risk groups for which the probability of progression at 5 yr varied from 40%. Limitations include the retrospective collection of data and the lack of central pathology review. Conclusions: This study provides updated EAU prognostic factor risk groups that can be used to inform patient treatment and follow-up. Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and 1973 grading classifications, a new, very high-risk group has been identified for which urologists should be prompt to assess and adapt their therapeutic strategy when necessary. Patient summary: The newly updated European Association of Urology prognostic factor risk groups for non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer provide an improved basis for recommending a patient's treatment and follow-up schedule. The updated European Association of Urology prognostic factor risk groups for patients with non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer provide urologists with information that they should take into account when choosing a patient's treatment and scheduling follow-up