Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRussell, B
dc.contributor.authorKotecha, P
dc.contributor.authorThurairaja, R
dc.contributor.authorNair, R
dc.contributor.authorMalde, S
dc.contributor.authorKumar, P
dc.contributor.authorKhan, MS
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-13T08:20:33Z
dc.date.available2021-08-13T08:20:33Z
dc.identifier.citationTranslational andrology and urology, 2021, 10 (6), pp. 2750 - 2761
dc.identifier.issn2223-4691
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/4764
dc.identifier.eissn2223-4691
dc.identifier.eissn2223-4691en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/tau-20-1363
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/tau-20-1363en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground The aim of this systematic review was to identify the current endoscopic surveillance strategies in use across the world and to determine whether these were sufficient or if any recommendations for changes in the guidelines could be made. This review focused on the cystoscopic follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients and muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients who had undergone bladder sparing treatments.Methods A literature search was carried out on Medline and Embase using OVID gateway according to a pre-defined protocol. Systematic screening of the identified studies was carried out by two authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal tools. Data was extracted on various aspects including the follow-up regime utilised, patients included, outcomes investigated and a summary of the results. The studies were compared in a narrative nature.Results A total of 2,604 studies were identified from the search strategy, of which 14 were deemed suitable for inclusion following the screening process. The studies identified were from nine countries and were mainly observational or qualitative. There was a huge variation in the follow-up regimes utilised within the studies with no clear consensus as to which regime was the most suitable. However, all studies utilised an initial cystoscopy at three months post-TURBT. No studies were identified which investigated the endoscopic follow-up strategies for MIBC patients who opted for bladder conservation with chemoradiation.Conclusions There is no universally accepted protocol for endoscopic follow-up of patients with NMIBC bladder cancer. Guidance on cystoscopic monitoring of bladder in patients who have undergone chemoradiation for MIBC is also lacking.
dc.formatPrint
dc.format.extent2750 - 2761
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.titleEndoscopic surveillance for bladder cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-03-25
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.21037/tau-20-1363
dc.relation.isPartOfTranslational andrology and urology
pubs.issue6
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume10en_US
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
dc.contributor.icrauthorKumar, Pardeepen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/