Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 20:48:24-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.025. eCollection 2023 Feb.

Implementing a Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor to Standardize Outcome Reporting: When High-quality Resection Could Influence Oncological Outcomes

Affiliations

Implementing a Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor to Standardize Outcome Reporting: When High-quality Resection Could Influence Oncological Outcomes

Pietro Diana et al. Eur Urol Open Sci. .

Abstract

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT) have reported controversial results. In particular, the 1-yr recurrence rate ranged from 5% to 40% for ERBT and from 11% to 31% for cTURBT. We provide an updated analysis of an RCT comparing the 1-yr recurrence rate for ERBT versus cTURBT for a cohort of 219 patients comprising 123 (56.2%) in the ERBT group and 96 (43.8%) in the cTURBT group. At 1 yr, 11 patients in the ERBT group and 12 in the cTURBT group experienced recurrence. The heterogeneity in recurrence observed in other RCTs could be explained by the scarce and heterogeneous adoption of tools and techniques that have been proved to lower the recurrence rate, supporting the need for implementation of a TURBT checklist. This prompted us to create a checklist of items for RCTs to standardize how TURBT is performed in trials, facilitate comparison between studies, assess the applicability of results in real-life practice, and provide a push towards high-quality resections to improve oncological outcomes. The checklist could have utility as a user-friendly guide for reporting TURBT procedures to improve our understanding of trials involving this procedure.

Patient summary: We compared the recurrence rate at 1 year for bladder cancer treated with two different approaches to remove bladder tumors in our center. The rates were comparable for the two groups. Other studies have found widely differing recurrence rates, so we propose use of a checklist to standardize these procedures and provide more consistent outcomes for patients.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Endoscopy; Resection; Treatment; Urothelial cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Babjuk M., Burger M., Capoun O., et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (Ta, T1, and carcinoma in situ) Eur Urol. 2022;81:75–94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Teoh J.Y.C., MacLennan S., Chan V.W.S., et al. An international collaborative consensus statement on en bloc resection of bladder tumour incorporating two systematic reviews, a two-round Delphi survey, and a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2020;78:546–569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.059. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gallioli A., Diana P., Fontana M., et al. En bloc versus conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors: a single-center prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:440–448. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.05.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mariappan P., Zachou A., Grigor K.M. Detrusor muscle in the first, apparently complete transurethral resection of bladder tumour specimen is a surrogate marker of resection quality, predicts risk of early recurrence, and is dependent on operator experience. Eur Urol. 2010;57:843–849. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maisch P, Koziarz A, Vajgrt J, Narayan V, Kim MH, Dahm P. Blue vs white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer: an abridged Cochrane Review. BJU Int. In press. 10.1111/bju.15723. - DOI - PubMed