Keiichiro Mori1, Noriyoshi Miura2, Marek Babjuk3, Pierre I Karakiewicz4, Hadi Mostafaei5, Ekaterina Laukhtina6, Fahad Quhal7, Reza Sari Motlagh8, Benjamin Pradere9, Shoji Kimura10, Shin Egawa10, Shahrokh F Shariat11. 1. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan. 3. Department of Urology, Hospital Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 5. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 6. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 7. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 8. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, CHRU Tours, Francois Rabelais University, France. 10. Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 11. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Hospital Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, the Netherlands. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduriwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review assessed compliance to guidelines for the management of nonmuscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (NMIBC). METHODS: The PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched in November 2019 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies incorporating a collective total of 10,575 NMIBC patients were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. We found that the rates of compliance were 53.0% with a single immediate intravesical instillation in patients with presumed low or intermediate risk, 37.1% with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin or chemotherapy in those with intermediate risk, 43.4% with performance of a second transurethral resection in high-risk patients, 32.5% with administration of adjuvant intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin in high-risk patients, 36.1% with radical cystectomy in highest-risk patients, and 82.2% with cystoscopy for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with NMIBC guidelines remains low. Better guideline education and understanding holds the key to achieving high compliance. Strategies to improve guideline compliance at the physician level are urgently required.
PURPOSE: This systematic review assessed compliance to guidelines for the management of nonmuscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (NMIBC). METHODS: The PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched in November 2019 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies incorporating a collective total of 10,575 NMIBC patients were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. We found that the rates of compliance were 53.0% with a single immediate intravesical instillation in patients with presumed low or intermediate risk, 37.1% with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin or chemotherapy in those with intermediate risk, 43.4% with performance of a second transurethral resection in high-risk patients, 32.5% with administration of adjuvant intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin in high-risk patients, 36.1% with radical cystectomy in highest-risk patients, and 82.2% with cystoscopy for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with NMIBC guidelines remains low. Better guideline education and understanding holds the key to achieving high compliance. Strategies to improve guideline compliance at the physician level are urgently required.
Authors: Keiichiro Mori; Takafumi Yanagisawa; Satoshi Katayama; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Benjamin Pradere; Hadi Mostafaei; Fahad Quhal; Pawel Rajwa; Marco Moschini; Francesco Soria; David D'andrea; Mohammad Abufaraj; Simone Albisinni; Wojciech Krajewski; Wataru Fukuokaya; Jun Miki; Takahiro Kimura; Shin Egawa; Jeremy Yc Teoh; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Satoshi Katayama; Keiichiro Mori; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Victor M Schuettfort; Fahad Quhal; Reza Sari Motlagh; Hadi Mostafaei; Nico C Grossmann; Pawel Rajwa; Marco Moschini; Romain Mathieu; Mohammad Abufaraj; David D'Andrea; Eva Compérat; Martin Haydter; Shin Egawa; Yasutomo Nasu; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.226