Variation in Follow-Up after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer-An Inventory Roundtable and Literature Review
Background: Follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer can be divided into oncological and functional surveillance. It remains unclear how follow-up after RC should ideally be scheduled. The aim of this report was to gain insight into the organization of follow-up after RC in Europe,...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau) |
| Repositorio: | r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p17889 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=17889 http://ddd.uab.cat/record/306316 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | follow-up radical cystectomy bladder cancer |
| Sumario: | Background: Follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer can be divided into oncological and functional surveillance. It remains unclear how follow-up after RC should ideally be scheduled. The aim of this report was to gain insight into the organization of follow-up after RC in Europe, for which we conducted a roundtable inventory within the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group. Methods: An inventory semi-structured survey was performed among urologists of the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group to describe the organization of follow-up. The surveys were analyzed using a deductive approach. Similarities and differences in follow-up after RC for bladder cancer were described. Results: The survey included 11 urologists from six different European countries. An institutional follow-up scheme was used by six (55%); three (27%) used a national or international guideline, and two (18%) indicated that there was no defined follow-up scheme. Major divergent aspects included the time points of follow-up, the frequency, and the end of follow-up. Six centers (55%) adopted a risk-adapted follow-up approach tailored to (varying) patient and tumor characteristics. Laboratory tests and CT scans were used in all cases; however, the intensity and frequency varied. Functional follow-up overlapped with oncological follow-up in terms of frequency and duration. Patient-reported outcome measures were only used by two (18%) urologists. Conclusions: Substantial variability exists across European centers regarding the follow-up after RC for bladder cancer. This highlights the need for an international analysis focusing on its organization and content as well as on opportunities to improve patients' needs during follow-up after RC. |
|---|