Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018 aspects of diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Hosp Southern Jutland, Dept Urol, Sonderborg, Denmark.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology.
Sorbonne Univ, Hop Tenon, Paris, France.
Univ Amsterdam, Dept Urol, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Holland, Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: World journal of urology, ISSN 0724-4983, E-ISSN 1433-8726, Vol. 37, no 11, p. 2271-2278Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To summarize knowledge on upper urinary tract carcinoma (UTUC) regarding diagnostic procedures, risk factors and prognostic markers.

Methods: A scoping review approach was applied to search literature in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase. Consensus was reached through discussions at Consultation on UTUC in Stockholm, September 2018.

Results: Tumor stage and grade are the most important prognostic factors. CT urography (CTU) including corticomedullary phase is the preferred imaging modality. A clear tumor on CTU in combination with high-grade UTUC in urine cytology identifies high-risk UTUC, and in some cases indirect staging can be obtained. Bladder urine cytology has limited sensitivity, and in most cases ureterorenoscopy (URS) with in situ samples for cytology and histopathology are mandatory for exact diagnosis. Image-enhancing techniques, Image S1 and narrow-band imaging, may improve tumor detection at URS. Direct confocal laser endomicroscopy may help to define grade during URS. There is strong correlation between stage and grade, accordingly correct grading is crucial. The correlation is more pronounced using the 1999 WHO than the 2004 classification: however, the 1999 system risks greater interobserver variability. Using both systems is advisable. A number of tissue-based molecular markers have been studied. None has proven ready for use in clinical practice.

Conclusions: Correct grading and staging of UTUC are mandatory for adequate treatment decisions. Optimal diagnostic workup should include CTU with corticomedullary phase, URS with in situ cytology and biopsies. Both WHO classification systems (1999 and 2004) should be used to decrease risk of undergrading or overtreatment.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 37, no 11, p. 2271-2278
Keywords [en]
Upper tract urothelial carcinoma, UTUC, Diagnostics, CT urography, Ureteroscopy, Diagnostic samples
National Category
Urology and Nephrology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-397645DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02732-8ISI: 000493686100002PubMedID: 30915526OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-397645DiVA, id: diva2:1373104
Available from: 2019-11-26 Created: 2019-11-26 Last updated: 2019-11-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(763 kB)5 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 763 kBChecksum SHA-512
134697174604bd943551ac25de41db128c4df22e4566a6acf501b1b359ff1c604b251885ce7f9997a15b321e335524331caf3adfeec8367ed4277a00b38cf61d
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Magnusson, AndersBrehmer, Marianne
By organisation
Radiology
In the same journal
World journal of urology
Urology and Nephrology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 5 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf