OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of photodynamic diagnostic ureterorenoscopy (PDD-FURS) in detection of UUT-TCC in comparison with CT Urogram (CTU) and WL-FURS. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Between June 2009 and August 2011, 30 patients underwent PDD-FURS after CTU for suspicion of UUT-TCC. Ureterorenoscopy was performed for abnormal upper urinary tract on imaging. Oral 5-Aminolevulinic Acid (5-ALA) was used as a photosensitizer. All procedures were performed by single endourologist experienced in photodynamic diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, and detection rate of WL-FURS, PDD-FURS and CTU were calculated using the Meta-DiSc v1.4 programme. P values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS:PDD-FURS detected more UUT-TCCs than CTU or WL-FURS (94% (16/17) vs. 76.5% (13/17) vs. 82% (14/17) respectively). PDD-FURS was not significantly more sensitive than CTU and WL-FURS to detect UUT-TCC (0.94 (95% CI: 0.71-0.99) vs. 0.82 (95% CI: 0.57-0.96) vs. 0.81 (95% CI: 0.54-0.96) respectively; PDD-FURS vs. CTU: P=0.249; PDD-FURS vs. WL-FURS: P=0.277). There was no difference in the specificity between PDD-FURS and WL-FURS (1.0 (95% CI: 0.75-1.0) and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.75-1.0) respectively) (P=1), while PDD-FURS was significantly more specific than CTU (CTU: 0.21 (95% CI: 0.05-0.51) (P<0.001). PDD-FURS picked up 3 cases of CIS, which was not seen on WL-FURL and CTU. CONCLUSION: Oral 5-ALA induced PDD-FURS has a high sensitivity and specificity to detect lesions and a higher detection rate to diagnose UUT-TCC than WL-FURS and CTU. It appears to be the only tool to visualise UUT CIS lesions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of photodynamic diagnostic ureterorenoscopy (PDD-FURS) in detection of UUT-TCC in comparison with CT Urogram (CTU) and WL-FURS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between June 2009 and August 2011, 30 patients underwent PDD-FURS after CTU for suspicion of UUT-TCC. Ureterorenoscopy was performed for abnormal upper urinary tract on imaging. Oral 5-Aminolevulinic Acid (5-ALA) was used as a photosensitizer. All procedures were performed by single endourologist experienced in photodynamic diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, and detection rate of WL-FURS, PDD-FURS and CTU were calculated using the Meta-DiSc v1.4 programme. P values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS:PDD-FURS detected more UUT-TCCs than CTU or WL-FURS (94% (16/17) vs. 76.5% (13/17) vs. 82% (14/17) respectively). PDD-FURS was not significantly more sensitive than CTU and WL-FURS to detect UUT-TCC (0.94 (95% CI: 0.71-0.99) vs. 0.82 (95% CI: 0.57-0.96) vs. 0.81 (95% CI: 0.54-0.96) respectively; PDD-FURS vs. CTU: P=0.249; PDD-FURS vs. WL-FURS: P=0.277). There was no difference in the specificity between PDD-FURS and WL-FURS (1.0 (95% CI: 0.75-1.0) and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.75-1.0) respectively) (P=1), while PDD-FURS was significantly more specific than CTU (CTU: 0.21 (95% CI: 0.05-0.51) (P<0.001). PDD-FURS picked up 3 cases of CIS, which was not seen on WL-FURL and CTU. CONCLUSION: Oral 5-ALA induced PDD-FURS has a high sensitivity and specificity to detect lesions and a higher detection rate to diagnose UUT-TCC than WL-FURS and CTU. It appears to be the only tool to visualise UUT CIS lesions.