| Literature DB >> 33457279 |
Lawrence H C Kim1,2, Manish I Patel1,2.
Abstract
The goals of transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) are to identify and eradicate visualized bladder tumour if technically safe and feasible and to obtain a specimen of satisfactory quality to enable accurate histological diagnosis. In the setting of high grade bladder tumour this generally entails the inclusion of detrusor muscle and assessment for the presence of associated carcinoma in situ (CIS), lymphovascular involvement or any variant form of bladder cancer. This will assist in determining risk stratification and prognostication of the bladder cancer and guides further treatment planning. Conversely, if suboptimal TURBT is performed there will be detrimental consequences on patient outcomes in regards to undergrading or understaging, increased recurrence or progression, and subsequently need for further treatments including more invasive interventions. This review article firstly summarises the key principles and complications of TURBT, as well as significance of re-TURBT. We also discuss a number of modifications and advances in detection technology and resection techniques that have shown to improve perioperative as well as pathological and oncological outcomes of bladder cancer. They include enhanced cystoscopy such as blue light cystoscopy (BLC), narrow band imaging (NBI) and en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) technique using various types of energy source. 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT); blue light cystoscopy (BLC); carcinoma in situ (CIS); en bloc resection of bladder tumour technique (ERBT technique); narrow beam imaging (NBI); non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)
Year: 2020 PMID: 33457279 PMCID: PMC7807319 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.38
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Androl Urol ISSN: 2223-4683
Weighting used to calculate disease recurrence and progression scores
| Factor | Recurrence | Progression |
|---|---|---|
| Number of tumours | ||
| Single | 0 | 0 |
| 2–7 | 3 | 3 |
| ≥8 | 6 | 3 |
| Tumour diameter | ||
| <3 cm | 0 | 0 |
| ≥3 cm | 3 | 3 |
| Prior recurrence rate | ||
| Primary | 0 | 0 |
| ≤1 recurrence/year | 2 | 2 |
| >1 recurrence/year | 4 | 2 |
| Category | ||
| Ta | 0 | 0 |
| T1 | 1 | 4 |
| Concurrent CIS | ||
| No | 0 | 0 |
| Yes | 1 | 6 |
| Grade | ||
| G1 | 0 | 0 |
| G2 | 1 | 0 |
| G3 | 2 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
Probability of recurrence according to total score
| Recurrence score | Probability of recurrence at 1 year | Probability of recurrence at 5 years | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | ||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1–4 | 24 | 21–26 | 46 | 42–49 | |
| 5–9 | 38 | 35–41 | 62 | 58–65 | |
| 10–17 | 61 | 55–67 | 78 | 73–84 | |
Probability of disease progression according to total score
| Progression score | Probability of progression at 1 year | Probability of progression at 5 years | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | ||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2–6 | 1 | 0.4–1.6 | 6 | 5–8 | |
| 7–13 | 5 | 4–7 | 17 | 14–20 | |
| 14–23 | 17 | 10–24 | 45 | 35–55 | |
Weighting used to calculate recurrence and progression scores
| Factor | Recurrence score | Progression score |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| M | 0 | 0 |
| F | 3 | 0 |
| Age (years) | ||
| <60 | 0 | 0 |
| 60–70 | 1 | 0 |
| >70 | 2 | 2 |
| Recurrent tumour | ||
| No | 0 | 0 |
| Yes | 4 | 2 |
| No. of tumours | ||
| ≤3 | 0 | 0 |
| >3 | 2 | 1 |
| T category | ||
| Ta | 0 | 0 |
| T1 | 0 | 2 |
| Associated CIS | ||
| No | 0 | 0 |
| Yes | 2 | 1 |
| Grade | ||
| G1 | 0 | 0 |
| G2 | 1 | 2 |
| G3 | 3 | 6 |
| Total scores | 0–16 | 0–14 |
CIS, carcinoma in situ.
Figure 1Bladder diagram [permission obtained from the EAU guidelines (36)].
A summary of published studies on various ERBT techniques (in comparison to conventional TURBT)
| First author | Year of | Cohort size | Study design | Tumour size (cm) | Modality | Extraction methods | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hurle ( | 2016 | ERBT 74 | Prospective | 2.03 (±0.63) | Collins knife | Ellik evacuator through resectoscope sheath/laparoscopic grasp through nephroscope sheath | 8—grade I, 1—grade II CD |
| Migliari ( | 2015 | ERBT 58; cTURBT 61 | Prospective | 2.5; 2.3 | Multipulse Tm + 1470 thulium laser, diode + thulium laser fiber vs. monopolar cTURBT | N/A | 0—Grade I; 2—grade II; 1—grade III CD |
| Chen ( | 2015 | ERBT 71; cTURBT 71 | Prospective randomized | 2.6 (±1.4); 2.3 (±1.2) | Tm:YAG 2 lm continuous wave laser fiber set at 30 to 50 W vs. monopolar cTURBT | Ellick evacuator | ONR 0, BP 0; ONR 18, BP 0 |
| Kramer ( | 2015 | ERBT 65 (50 Holmium, 15 Thulium); | Retrospective | 2.63 (±0.79) 1.66 (±0.73); | Ho:YAG bare fiber Tm:YAG bare fiber J-electrode | Forceps, retrieval bags | l-ERBT: 4x Grade II 3x Grade III CD; cTURBT: 6x Grade II, 3x Grade III CD |
| He ( | 2014 | ERBT 45 | Prospective | 1.8 (0.3–3) | Green light KTP laser with a front-firing fiber set at 30 W | Ellik evacuator through resectoscope sheath | None |
| Muto ( | 2014 | ERBT 55 | Prospective | 2.36 (±1.47) | Tm:YAG 2 lm continuous wave laser fiber set at 30 W Grasper | through resectoscope sheath | None |
| Sureka ( | 2014 | ERBT 21; cTURBT 24 | Prospective randomized | 2.8–3.3 | Tungsten loop electrode; Loop bent at 45° | Grasping forceps through nephroscope sheath | N/A |
| Upadhyay ( | 2012 | ERBT 21; cTURBT 25 | Prospective randomized | 2–4 | Loop bent at 45° | Syringe through resectoscope sheath | None; 1 BP |
| Maurice ( | 2012 | ERBT 9 | Retrospective | Up to 5 cm | 21F rigid cystoscope/7F monopolar polypectomy snare | Multipurpose endoscopic mesh net retrieved with the scope through urethra | None |
| Naselli ( | 2012 | ERBT 26 | Prospective | 2 (0.5–4.5) | Collins loop | Laparoscopic 5-mm clamp retrieved with the scope through urethra | 6x (28%) Grade I–II CD |
| Fritsche ( | 2011 | ERBT 17 | Prospective | 0.4–7.5 | Water-jet hydrodissection | Endobag | None |
| Nagele ( | 2011 | ERBT 5 | Prospective | 1 (0.5–2) | Water-jet hydrodissection | 5 Prototype nylon retrieval bag | 1 ureteric stent |
| Ukai ( | 2010 | ERBT 97 | Prospective | 2.02 (0.5–5.5) | J-shaped electrode | Biopsy forceps through resectoscope sheath | None |
| Lodde ( | 2003 | ERBT 37 | Prospective | <2.5 cm | Flat loop | Syringe through resectoscope sheath | 1 BP |
| Saito ( | 2001 | ERBT 35 | Retrospective | 0.2–3 | Holmium fiber laser at bladder neck; Collins electrode other locations | Loop electrode through resectoscope sheath | None |
| Zhang ( | 2015 | ERBT 149; cTURBT 143 | Prospective randomized | <3 cm (ERBT 65.8, TURBT 66.4%); | If >3 cm—incise into multiple pieces | 0 BP, 1 urethral injury; 6 BP, 2 bleeding | |
| Xishuang ( | 2010 | ERBT 51; cTURBT 122 (monopolar 64, bipolar 58) | Retrospective | 1.9 (0.5-3.6); 1.7 (0.6–3.8) 1.5 (0.4–4.1) | Holmium fiber laser | N/A | 1 US |
| Zhu ( | 2008 | ERBT 101; cTURBT 111 | Retrospective | <3 cm; (ERBT 94.1%, TURBT 93.7%); | Holmium fiber laser | <3 cm—retrieved using a syringe, >3 cm—Elik’s evacuator | 1 US |
| Liu ( | 2013 | ERBT 64; cTURBT 56 | Prospective randomized | 1.3 (±0.2); 1.3 (±0.3) | Tm:YAG bare fibre | N/A | ONR 0 BP 0; ONR 0 BP 5 |
| Chen ( | 2016 | ERBT 83; cTURBT 74 | Retrospective | 1.9 (±1.1); 1.7 (±1.0) | The green‐light lithium triborate (LBO) laser | Ellik evacuator (if >3 cm: incise into multiple pieces) | 0; ONR 9 BP 2 US 3 |
BP, bladder perforation; cTURBT, conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumours; ERBT, en bloc resection of bladder tumours; ONR, obturator nerve reflex; US, urethral stricture; CD, Clavien-Dindo Classification; Ho:YAG, Holmium; l-ERBT, laser-based.