AIM: To determine the follow-up protocol for interval assessment of patients following radical nephrectomy for renal cell cancer and to compare them with the recommendations proposed in the literature. METHODS: Consultant urologists across Britain and Ireland completed a postal questionnaire. One follow-up mailing was used to encourage non-responders. The responses were analysed in the light of the recommendations from European Association of Urology and American guidelines. Also information was collected from the respondents on the choice of follow-up investigations for renal cell cancer and the total duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 480 urologists surveyed 292 (60.8%) responded. Most respondents recommended regular follow-up with chest radiography (CR), ultrasound and computed tomography (CT). For T1 disease CR was requested by 28, 62 and 55%; for T2 disease by 30, 66 and 51%; for T3 disease by 39, 63, and 48% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For T1 disease US was requested by 5, 23 and 30%; for T2 disease 6, 27 and 30%; for T3 disease 8, 25, and 26% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For T1 disease an abdominal CT was requested by 2, 17 and 21%; for T2 disease 3.7, 19.5 and 26%; for T3 disease 10, 31, and 33% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Only one respondent followed the guidelines suggested in the literature. Further follow-up after 12 months for 5 and 10 years was suggested by 58.2 and 21.3% for T1, 53 and 24.73% for T2, and 45.5 and 25.5% for T3, respectively. There is appreciable variation in the frequency of use and timing of imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents perform follow-up after radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cancer, with considerable variability in their practices. In the current increasingly cost-conscious healthcare industry a scientifically justified follow-up should be considered.
AIM: To determine the follow-up protocol for interval assessment of patients following radical nephrectomy for renal cell cancer and to compare them with the recommendations proposed in the literature. METHODS: Consultant urologists across Britain and Ireland completed a postal questionnaire. One follow-up mailing was used to encourage non-responders. The responses were analysed in the light of the recommendations from European Association of Urology and American guidelines. Also information was collected from the respondents on the choice of follow-up investigations for renal cell cancer and the total duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 480 urologists surveyed 292 (60.8%) responded. Most respondents recommended regular follow-up with chest radiography (CR), ultrasound and computed tomography (CT). For T1 disease CR was requested by 28, 62 and 55%; for T2 disease by 30, 66 and 51%; for T3 disease by 39, 63, and 48% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For T1 disease US was requested by 5, 23 and 30%; for T2 disease 6, 27 and 30%; for T3 disease 8, 25, and 26% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For T1 disease an abdominal CT was requested by 2, 17 and 21%; for T2 disease 3.7, 19.5 and 26%; for T3 disease 10, 31, and 33% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Only one respondent followed the guidelines suggested in the literature. Further follow-up after 12 months for 5 and 10 years was suggested by 58.2 and 21.3% for T1, 53 and 24.73% for T2, and 45.5 and 25.5% for T3, respectively. There is appreciable variation in the frequency of use and timing of imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents perform follow-up after radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cancer, with considerable variability in their practices. In the current increasingly cost-conscious healthcare industry a scientifically justified follow-up should be considered.
Authors: John Pearson; Timothy Williamson; Joseph Ischia; Damien M Bolton; Mark Frydenberg; Nathan Lawrentschuk Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2015-09-07