4.5 Article

'Real-life experience': recurrence rate at 3 years with Hexvix® photodynamic diagnosis-assisted TURBT compared with good quality white light TURBT in new NMIBC-a prospective controlled study

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 1871-1877

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2077-6

关键词

Bladder cancer; Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT); Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the recurrence rate at 3 years (RR-3y) for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) between good quality (GQ) PDD-TURBT and GQWL-TURBT where PDD is used in routine practice for all new tumours. Methods All new, consecutive, NMIBC that received good quality criteria first TURBT across a university hospital service were prospectively recruited to this study over a 4-year period. Data were prospectively collected on all WL-TURBTs performed in 2007/8 and compared with PDD-TURBT from 2009/10. Only resection meeting strict good quality criteria were included from each cohort to control for resection quality, then cases were further matched 1:1 based on demographic and pathological criteria. The primary outcome was overall and risk group-specific recurrence rate at 3 years. Results Of 808 patients recruited, 345 had GQ-TURBT for NMIBC and were included. RR-3y was significantly less for GQ-PDD overall [RR-3y: GQ-PDD: 57/146 (39.0%), GQ-WL: 72/135 (53.3%) OR = 0.56 (0.35-0.90) p = 0.02] and on a 1:1 matched pair basis [RR GQ-PDD: 29/118 (24.6) vs. 59/118 (50.0) OR 0.33 (0.19-0.57) p < 0.001)]. Benefit was most marked in high-risk patients: RR-3y in high-risk patients treated with GQ-PDD was 25/48 (52.1%) vs. 28/35 (80%) for GQ-WL [OR 0.27 (0.10-0.74) p = 0.01]. Conclusion When adopted for all new bladder tumour resections in routine practice, PDD appears to be associated with significantly reduced recurrence rates at 3 years in our real life experience, particularly in high-risk patients.

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

4.5
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