a Department of Urology, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan;
b Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
Who needs further evaluations to diagnose upper urinary tract urothelial cancers among patients with abnormal fi ndings by enhanced CT?
a Department of Urology, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan;
b Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
摘要 Objective: We evaluated who would need further evaluations such as retrograde pyelography (RP) and/or ureteroscopy to diagnose upper urinary tract urothelial cancers (UUTUCs) when abnormal findings for the upper urinary tract (UUT) were detected by enhanced computed tomography (CT). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 125 patients who underwent enhanced CT for various reasons and had abnormal findings for the UUT. Patients whose tumors were suspected to be of extraureteral origin were excluded. All patients received RP and/or ureteroscopy to evaluate the UUTUCs. Results: The median age of the 125 patients was 70 years and gross hematuria (26.4%) was the most frequently observed symptoms. RP, ureteroscopy and both were performed for 121, 59 and 55 patients, respectively. CT revealed tumor-like lesions in 58 patients and the other patients had non-tumor-like lesions. UUTUCs were found in 43 (34.4%) of the 125 patients. All of them had tumor-like lesions on CT. In 58 patients who had tumor-like lesions on CT, univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that tumor diameter and tumor enhancement were significant predictive factors for UUTUCs. ROC curve analysis of enhanced CT to diagnose UUTUCs revealed that a tumor diameter of 18 mm was the best cutoff point. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 90.0%, 98.8% and 92.7% for RP and 95.5%, 100% and 97.1% for ureteroscopy, respectively. Both of them had high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Conclusion: We should decide to evaluate the UUT according to the tumor diameter on enhanced CT. When we evaluate the UUT in patients with tumor diameters of less than 20 mm, ureteroscopy is recommended.
Abstract: Objective: We evaluated who would need further evaluations such as retrograde pyelography (RP) and/or ureteroscopy to diagnose upper urinary tract urothelial cancers (UUTUCs) when abnormal findings for the upper urinary tract (UUT) were detected by enhanced computed tomography (CT). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 125 patients who underwent enhanced CT for various reasons and had abnormal findings for the UUT. Patients whose tumors were suspected to be of extraureteral origin were excluded. All patients received RP and/or ureteroscopy to evaluate the UUTUCs. Results: The median age of the 125 patients was 70 years and gross hematuria (26.4%) was the most frequently observed symptoms. RP, ureteroscopy and both were performed for 121, 59 and 55 patients, respectively. CT revealed tumor-like lesions in 58 patients and the other patients had non-tumor-like lesions. UUTUCs were found in 43 (34.4%) of the 125 patients. All of them had tumor-like lesions on CT. In 58 patients who had tumor-like lesions on CT, univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that tumor diameter and tumor enhancement were significant predictive factors for UUTUCs. ROC curve analysis of enhanced CT to diagnose UUTUCs revealed that a tumor diameter of 18 mm was the best cutoff point. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 90.0%, 98.8% and 92.7% for RP and 95.5%, 100% and 97.1% for ureteroscopy, respectively. Both of them had high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Conclusion: We should decide to evaluate the UUT according to the tumor diameter on enhanced CT. When we evaluate the UUT in patients with tumor diameters of less than 20 mm, ureteroscopy is recommended.
Akio Takayanagi, Atsushi Takahashi, Fumimasa Fukuta, Manabu Okada, Masahiro Matsuki, Shunsuke Sato, Teruhisa Uehara, Shuichi Kato, Yoshio Takagi. Who needs further evaluations to diagnose upper urinary tract urothelial cancers among patients with abnormal fi ndings by enhanced CT?[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(1): 44-48.
Akio Takayanagi, Atsushi Takahashi, Fumimasa Fukuta, Manabu Okada, Masahiro Matsuki, Shunsuke Sato, Teruhisa Uehara, Shuichi Kato, Yoshio Takagi. Who needs further evaluations to diagnose upper urinary tract urothelial cancers among patients with abnormal fi ndings by enhanced CT?. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(1): 44-48.
Kitamura H, Maeda T, Tanaka T, Fukuta F, Kobayashi K, Nishiyama N, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and open surgical nephroureterectomy. JSLS 2014;18:288-93.
[2]
Lisanti CJ, Toffoli TJ, Stringer MT, DeWitt RM, Schwope RB. CT evaluation of the upper urinary tract in adults younger than 50 years with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria: is IV contrast enhancement needed? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203:615-9.
[3]
Shao P, Li P, Xu Y, Cao Q, Ju X, Qin C, et al. Application of combined computed tomography arteriography, venography, and urography in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental artery clamping. Urology 2014;84:1361-5.
[4]
Li C, Lin X,Hui C, LamKM, Zhang S. Computer-aided diagnosis for distinguishing pancreaticmucinous cystic neoplasms fromserous oligocystic adenomas in spectral CT images. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2014. pii: 1533034614563013. [Epub ahead of print].
[5]
Ohkawa K, Imanaka K, Sakakibara M, Tamai C, Ishihara A, Hasegawa N, et al. Factors related to shift from hepatic borderline lesion to overt HCC diagnosed by CT. Hepatogastroenterology 2014;61:1680-7.
[6]
Matsuki M, Takahashi A, Katou S, Takayanagi A, Takagi Y, Kamata K. Pathological complete response to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy for advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a case report. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 2013; 104:33-7 [in Japanese].
[7]
Fulgham PF, Bishoff JT. Urinary tract imaging: basic principles. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Campbell MF, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10th ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc; 2012. p. 107-8.
[8]
Duffey B, Monga M. Upper urinary tract endoscopy. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Campbell MF, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10th ed., vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc; 2012. p. 196-203.
[9]
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012;48:452e8.
Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Inampudi P, Ellis JH, Shah RB, Faerber GJ, et al. MDCT urography of upper tract urothelial neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1873-81.
[12]
Maheshwari E, O'Malley ME, Ghai S, Staunton M, Massey C. Split-bolus MDCT urography: upper tract opacification and performance for upper tract tumors in patients with hematuria. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:453-8.
[13]
Takao A, Saika T, Uehara S, Monden K, Abarzua F, Nasu Y, et al. Indications for ureteropyeloscopy based on radiographic findings and urine cytology in detection of upper urinary tract carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010;40:1087-91.
Christopher Hartman, Nikhil Gupta, David Leavitt, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith. Advances in percutaneous stone surgery[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2015, 2(1): 26
-32
.
