Variation in Follow-Up after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer-An Inventory Roundtable and Literature Review

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 w...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Contieri, Roberto|||0000-0001-7011-0537, Pichler, Renate|||0000-0001-5286-9048, Del Giudice, Francesco|||0000-0003-3865-5988, Marcq, Gautier|||0000-0002-1806-1448, Gallioli, Andrea|||0000-0002-3316-5691, Albisinni, Simone|||0000-0001-5529-3064, Soria, Francesco|||0000-0001-8443-8453, D'Andrea, David|||0000-0003-1625-1077, Krajewski, Wojciech, Carrion, Diego M., Mari, Andrea|||0000-0001-9070-5706, van Rhijn, Bas W.G., Moschini, Marco|||0000-0002-3084-2458, Pradere, Benjamin|||0000-0002-7768-8558, Mertens, Laura S.|||0000-0003-3317-6427
Formato: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Recursos:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:306316
Acesso em linha:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/306316
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.3390/jcm13092637
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Bladder cancer
Follow-up
Radical cystectomy
Descrição
Resumo: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. 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. 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. 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.