The Implementation of a Risk Stratification Tool for the Haematuria Clinic to Optimise the Management of Patients with High-Risk Bladder Cancer in the COVID-19 Era
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Elective waiting lists have become more stretched because of the COVID-19 pandemic and patients have evidently been waiting longer for treatment. Patients with high-risk bladder cancer require timely treatment and there is strong evidence to suggest that delay in treatment contributes to a risk of disease progression, metastases and death. Studies have shown that bladder tumour appearances at flexible cystoscopy (FC) can accurately predict high-risk disease on histopathology following transurethral resection. An opportunity for service improvement resulted in a review of the practice followed by the authors and the development of a risk stratification tool for the haematuria clinic which aimed to prioritise the pathway of those with high-risk disease. Materials and methods: A risk stratification tool was developed for patients with newly diagnosed bladder tumours at the haematuria clinic. A tumour assessment carried out at FC is used to predict patients with high-risk disease, thus allowing those patients to be prioritised over those with low-risk disease on the waiting list. It also includes a reminder to request staging investigations for those with suspected high-risk disease. A closed loop audit was carried to review the following: the quality of tumour risk assessment at the haematuria clinic; time from FC to transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT); concordance between tumour assessment at FC and histopathology after TURBT; efficiency of arranging early staging investigations for those with suspected high-risk bladder cancer; time from FC to staging CT scan. Results: A risk assessment was carried out for 93% of patients in the second cycle compared with 40% in the first cycle. Concordance was noted in 83% of those with confirmed high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and 83% of muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in the first cycle, and in 100% of patients with high-risk NMIBC and MIBC in the second cycle. The interval from FC to TURBT decreased from 27 days in the first cycle to 21 days in the second cycle in those with high-risk NMIBC, and from 27 to 13 days in those with MIBC. Time from FC to staging CT for patients with high-risk bladder cancer was 6 days in the first cycle and 3 days in the second cycle if the request was made from the haematuria clinic. If the CT scan was requested later, the interval increased to 39 days in the first cycle and 22 days in the second cycle. Conclusion: There is a high degree of concordance between tumour risk assessment at FC and final pathology following TURBT which is supported by several series. Performing risk assessment and requesting staging investigations at the haematuria clinic for patients with newly diagnosed high-risk bladder cancer can minimise delays in their treatment pathway and improve patient outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».