S Jeglinschi1, A Schirmann2, M Durand3, S Sanchez4, S Larré2, P Léon5. 1. Service d'urologie, CHU Nice, 06000 Nice, France; Service d'urologie, CHU Reims, 51100 Reims, France. Electronic address: csj360@gmail.com. 2. Service d'urologie, CHU Reims, 51100 Reims, France. 3. Service d'urologie, CHU Nice, 06000 Nice, France. 4. Départment d'information médicale, centre hospitalier, 10000 Troyes, France. 5. Service d'urologie, CHU Reims, 51100 Reims, France; Service d'urologie, clinique Pasteur, 17200 Royan, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the initial treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) was performed according to the guidelines, and to determine the reasons why initial treatment was not provided in nonadherence cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with NMIBC who underwent their first transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) at a peripheral hospital, between 2007 and 2016. The treatment offered to the patient was compared to the European Association of Urology guidelines according to risk stratification. For each patient who did not receive the treatment according to the guidelines, one of the following reasons was identified: poor patient compliance, poor patient general health status, urologist's decision, lack of resources. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine patients were included with a mean age of 72.2 years at the time of NMIBC diagnosis. The low-risk patients were strictly treated according to the guidelines. Among the intermediate-risk patients, 14% received mitomycin C. Among the high-risk patients, 39% received intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin. In the nonadherence cases (61%), the reasons were related to the patient in 44% of cases (poor compliance, 21%; poor patient general health status, 23%), urologist's decision in 54% of cases, and lack of resources in 2% of cases. Thirty-seven percent of the high-risk patients underwent re-resection. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adherence to NMIBC guidelines was low in all treatment types (intravesical therapy, re-resection, or cystectomy for very high-risk patients), but this finding was similar to that in previous studies. Reasons were mainly related to the urologist's decision or to the patient condition (poor compliance or poor general health status). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the initial treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) was performed according to the guidelines, and to determine the reasons why initial treatment was not provided in nonadherence cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with NMIBC who underwent their first transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) at a peripheral hospital, between 2007 and 2016. The treatment offered to the patient was compared to the European Association of Urology guidelines according to risk stratification. For each patient who did not receive the treatment according to the guidelines, one of the following reasons was identified: poor patient compliance, poor patient general health status, urologist's decision, lack of resources. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine patients were included with a mean age of 72.2 years at the time of NMIBC diagnosis. The low-risk patients were strictly treated according to the guidelines. Among the intermediate-risk patients, 14% received mitomycin C. Among the high-risk patients, 39% received intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin. In the nonadherence cases (61%), the reasons were related to the patient in 44% of cases (poor compliance, 21%; poor patient general health status, 23%), urologist's decision in 54% of cases, and lack of resources in 2% of cases. Thirty-seven percent of the high-risk patients underwent re-resection. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adherence to NMIBC guidelines was low in all treatment types (intravesical therapy, re-resection, or cystectomy for very high-risk patients), but this finding was similar to that in previous studies. Reasons were mainly related to the urologist's decision or to the patient condition (poor compliance or poor general health status). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Mihaela Georgiana Musat; Christina Soeun Kwon; Elizabeth Masters; Slaven Sikirica; Debduth B Pijush; Anna Forsythe Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2022-01-10