Indian Journal of Urology Users online:606  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 273-277

Utility of restage transurethral resection of bladder tumor


1 Department of Urology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Pathology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Ravimohan Suryanarayan Mavuduru
Department of Urology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_218_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) aims at complete resection of all the visible tumors. Existing guidelines recommend restage TURBT in all patients with T1 and high-grade tumors, to avoid under-staging. However, restage TURBT may not be plausible/feasible at all the times. This study was performed with an aim to better define the utility of restage TURBT in a tertiary care hospital of India. Methods: Patients with high grade/T1 tumors at the first TURBT were prospectively enrolled. Their demographic profile, previous cystoscopic findings, and histological reports were recorded. The primary objective was to assess the tumor detection and stage up-migration rates at restage TURBT. The secondary objectives was to identify factors predicting presence of tumor at restage TURBT. Patients were followed up to detect recurrence and progression for a minimum of 3 months. Results: Of 128 prospective patients' enrolled, 29 patients were lost to follow-up and 11 patients did not undergo restage. A total of eighty-eight patients underwent restage TURBT of which twenty-eight patients (31.8%) had tumor at their second TURBT with five of these patients being upstaged to T2. The risk of having a tumor at restage was significantly higher in patients with solid tumors (56.2% vs. 26.4%, P = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.035–0.024) but was independent of the tumor size (P = 0.472), number of growths (P = 0.267), grade of tumor (P = 0.441), presence or absence of muscle at the initial TURBT (P = 0.371) and place of initial TURBT (P = 0.289). There was a significant difference in the recurrence and progression rates in patients who had tumor at restage as compared to those who did not (recurrence; 33.3% and 23.8%, P = 0.022, respectively vs. progression; 11.1% and 3.7% respectively, P = 0.07; mean follow-up = 10.8 months). Conclusions: We conclude that restage TURBT is necessary in patients with solid looking tumors and the presence of tumor at restage confers a higher risk of recurrence and progression.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed323    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded75    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA