3.9 Article

Progress towards a Nordic standard for the investigation of hematuria: 2019

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 1-6

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2018.1555187

关键词

Hematuria; bladder cancer; investigation; population study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the management of patients with hematuria in the Nordic countries in relation to bladder cancer epidemiology, especially in the context of introducing fast track pathways with the aim of proposing a common guideline.Materials and methods: Epidemiological data on bladder cancer from each country, and the combined cancer registry, Nordcan, were analyzed. The evolution of the different national recommendations and the introduction of fast track pathways were assessed. Patients' demographics, type of hematuria and cancer detection rates were analysed if available.Results: The crude incidence of bladder cancer has increased substantially since the 1960s, while the age standardized incidence has been stable during recent decades. The relative survival has increased in all countries, while the mortality has been stable. For those with microscopic hematuria there has been a clear trend towards less rigorous investigations. In the fast track pathways, introduced in three of five countries, about one in five patients with macroscopic hematuria had a cancer diagnosis. Data show that time to diagnosis has been reduced.Conclusions: The number of patients with bladder cancer is increasing in the Nordic region. The introduction of fast track pathways has been important in improving the management of patients with suspicion of the disease. Our recommendation is to focus on macroscopic hematuria in the fast track pathways. Microhematuria without any symptoms should not be an indication for cystoscopy. However, urinary tract symptoms accompanied by microhematuria can still be investigated according to respective guidelines but not necessarily within fast track pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据