Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer

Background: A lack of consensus exists amongst national guidelines regarding who should be investigated for haematuria. Type of haematuria and age-specific thresholds are frequently used to guide referral for the investigation of haematuria. Objectives: To develop and externally validate the haematuria cancer risk score (HCRS) to improve patient selection for the investigation of haematuria. Methods: Development cohort comprise of 3539 prospectively recruited patients recruited at 40 UK hospitals (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) and validation cohort comprise of 656 Swiss patients. All patients were aged >18 years and referred to hospital for the evaluation of visible and nonvisible haematuria. Sensitivity and specificity of the HCRS in the validation cohort were derived from a cut-off identified from the discovery cohort. Results: Patient age, gender, type of haematuria and smoking history were used to develop the HCRS. HCRS validation achieves good discrimination (AUC 0.835; 95% CI: 0.789–0.880) and calibration (calibration slope = 1.215) with no significant overfitting (P = 0.151). The HCRS detected 11.4% (n = 8) more cancers which would be missed by UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. The American Urological Association guidelines would identify all cancers with a specificity of 12.6% compared to 30.5% achieved by the HCRS. All patients with upper tract cancers would have been identified. Conclusion: The HCRS offers good discriminatory accuracy which is superior to existing guidelines. The simplicity of the model would facilitate adoption and improve patient and physician decision-making

Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations?

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of urinary cytology to diagnose bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) as well as the outcome of patients with a positive urine cytology and normal haematuria investigations in patients in a multicentre prospective observational study of patients investigated for haematuria. Patient and methods: The DETECT I study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02676180) recruited patients presenting with haematuria following referral to secondary case at 40 hospitals. All patients had a cystoscopy and upper tract imaging (renal bladder ultrasound [RBUS] and/ or CT urogram [CTU]). Patients, where urine cytology were performed, were sub-analysed. The reference standard for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was histological confirmation of cancer. A positive urine cytology was defined as a urine cytology suspicious for neoplastic cells or atypical cells. Results: Of the 3 556 patients recruited, urine cytology was performed in 567 (15.9%) patients from nine hospitals. Median time between positive urine cytology and endoscopic tumour resection was 27 (IQR: 21.3–33.8) days. Bladder cancer was diagnosed in 39 (6.9%) patients and UTUC in 8 (1.4%) patients. The accuracy of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was: sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 95.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 47.6% and negative predictive value (NPV) 94.9%. A total of 21 bladder cancers and 5 UTUC were missed. Bladder cancers missed according to grade and stage were as follows: 4 (19%) were ≥ pT2, 2 (9.5%) were G3 pT1, 10 (47.6%) were G3/2 pTa and 5 (23.8%) were G1 pTa. High-risk cancer was confirmed in 8 (38%) patients. There was a marginal improvement in sensitivity (57.7%) for high-risk cancers. When urine cytology was combined with imaging, the diagnostic performance improved with CTU (sensitivity 90.2%, specificity 94.9%) superior to RBUS (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 96.7%). False positive cytology results were confirmed in 22 patients, of which 12 (54.5%) had further invasive tests and 5 (22.7%) had a repeat cytology. No cancer was identified in these patients during follow-up. Conclusions: Urine cytology will miss a significant number of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and high-risk disease. Our results suggest that urine cytology should not be routinely performed as part of haematuria investigations. The role of urine cytology in select cases should be considered in the context of the impact of a false positive result leading to further potentially invasive tests conducted under general anaesthesia