PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background: Follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer can be divided into oncological and functional surveillance. It remains unclear how follow-up after RC should ideally be scheduled. The aim of this report was to gain insight into the organization of follow-up after RC in Europe, for which we conducted a roundtable inventory within the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group. Methods: An inventory semi-structured survey was performed among urologists of the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group to describe the organization of follow-up. The surveys were analyzed using a deductive approach. Similarities and differences in follow-up after RC for bladder cancer were described. Results: The survey included 11 urologists from six different European countries. An institutional follow-up scheme was used by six (55%); three (27%) used a national or international guideline, and two (18%) indicated that there was no defined follow-up scheme. Major divergent aspects included the time points of follow-up, the frequency, and the end of follow-up. Six centers (55%) adopted a risk-adapted follow-up approach tailored to (varying) patient and tumor characteristics. Laboratory tests and CT scans were used in all cases; however, the intensity and frequency varied. Functional follow-up overlapped with oncological follow-up in terms of frequency and duration. Patient-reported outcome measures were only used by two (18%) urologists. Conclusions: Substantial variability exists across European centers regarding the follow-up after RC for bladder cancer. This highlights the need for an international analysis focusing on its organization and content as well as on opportunities to improve patients\' needs during follow-up after RC.
摘要：
背景：膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术（RC）后的随访可分为肿瘤和功能监测。目前尚不清楚RC后的后续行动应该如何安排。本报告的目的是深入了解欧洲RC之后的后续行动组织，为此，我们在EAU年轻学术泌尿外科医师尿路上皮癌工作组内进行了一次圆桌会议。方法：在EAU年轻学术泌尿科医师尿路上皮癌工作组的泌尿科医师中进行了半结构化的清单调查，以描述随访的组织。调查采用演绎方法进行分析。描述了膀胱癌RC术后随访的异同。结果：调查包括来自六个不同欧洲国家的11名泌尿科医师。六个（55％）使用了机构后续计划；三个（27％）使用了国家或国际准则，2人（18％）表示没有明确的后续计划。主要不同的方面包括后续行动的时间点，频率,以及后续行动的结束。六个中心（55％）采用了适合（不同）患者和肿瘤特征的风险适应随访方法。所有病例均采用实验室检查和CT扫描；然而，强度和频率变化。在频率和持续时间方面，功能随访与肿瘤随访重叠。患者报告的结果指标仅由两名（18％）泌尿科医师使用。结论：关于膀胱癌RC后随访的欧洲中心存在很大差异。这凸显了需要进行国际分析，重点关注其组织和内容以及在RC后随访期间改善患者需求的机会。
