MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485309517 · doi:10.1111/bju.13018

Fluorescence cystoscopy: the end of biopsies for carcinoma <i>in situ</i> detection?

2015· letter· en· W1485309517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Alfred Witjes

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystoscopyMedicineBladder cancerCarcinoma in situBiopsyWhite lightSignificant differenceUrologyRadiologySurgeryCarcinomaCancerPathologyInternal medicineUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present prospective study by Palou et al. 1, conducted in eight Spanish centres, documents the use of hexaminolevulinate fluorescence cystoscopy (FC)-guided bladder tumour resection and biopsies in 283 patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). It is an inpatient comparison between white-light cystoscopy and FC. The study presents data from routine practice in Spain and the results show an improvement in diagnosis of NMIBC, especially Ta tumours and carcinoma in situ (CIS) with FC-guided resections. These results are confirmation of reports in the literature, including a number of randomized controlled trials and a recent large meta analysis 2. Although the magnitude of the difference between FC and white-light cystoscopy was somewhat lower in the present study, apparently even in normal daily practice the difference was significant. Moreover, as the rate of CIS in Spain is very high, up to 19% in a large Spanish series 3, I can imagine that the use of FC is of specific interest in this country. Apart from the confirmation of the better detection rate (75.5 and 93.2% for white-light cystoscopy and FC, respectively, figures similar to those in the recent literature) and confirmation of safety of hexaminolevulinate FC, there are two particular points regarding the present study that I would like to highlight. The first item that deserves some discussion is mucosal biopsies. In this study the number of false-positive results (948/1569; 60.4%) was very high. This was predominantly explained by the inclusion or mucosal biopsies from ‘normal appearing urothelium’ in these calculations. Only 36 lesions were detected with biopsies, which suggests a very low detection rate. Assuming that >800 random biopsies were taken (apparently six biopsies were taken per patient, and biopsies were taken in 49.1% of the 283 patients), the detection rate was <4%, and one might ask whether it was still worthwhile to take these biopsies. Even though 26.7% of patients with CIS were only diagnosed by biopsies in this study, the number was small. The authors also indicate that it was surprising that CIS was not found more often with FC, but they blame it on the learning curve for FC. The value of mucosal biopsies was also questioned by some reviewers, and in fact by the present authors too. In their introduction they explain the biopsy policy by the high rate of CIS in Spain; however, they also indicate that this incidence seems to be decreasing. Taking together the disappointing detection rate of mucosal biopsies and the high detection rate of CIS with FC, the message should be clear: stop taking mucosal biopsies from normal-looking urothelium. As a matter of fact, this had already been suggested before the era of FC by the authors of other large studies, such as an analysis by the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 4 and a large Dutch study 5. The false-positive rate for FC was not very high (15.7%, similar to the more recent studies with hexaminolevulinate FC). And I assume that these figures would even be much lower if biopsies of normal urothelium were to be excluded from these calculations. The second point that deserves attention is the learning curve for FC and its impact on the results. The authors indeed mention as an important limitation of this study ‘the investigators’ lack of experience’ with FC. They point out that this might be the reason that the advantage of FC for the detection of CIS seemed to be less pronounced than in published series, although still significantly better than with white light. In their cohort, 27 of 36 patients with CIS (75%) were detected with FC. The impact of the learning curve and the limited experience of some of the centres is also illustrated by the wide range between centres in, for example, the false-positive rates. Indeed, some training with this FC technique is mandatory. Unfortunately, however, the authors were not able to provide details of the relationship between experience and detection of CIS or false-positive rates. In conclusion, even in routine practice, FC significantly improves the detection of NMIBC. The advantage is seen especially in Ta tumours and CIS, similarly to recent publications. The use of FC can, in my view, replace the use of random mucosal biopsies of normal-looking urothelium with white light because the detection rate of these biopsies is only a few percent. Finally, the present study also shows that a learning curve significantly improves the detection rate of NMIBC with FC and decreases the rate of false-positives. This should probably be somewhere between 5 (the number used in some of the registration studies for hexaminolevulinate) and 20 as suggested by a recent Canadian study 6. J.A.W. has been an investigator for Photocure and has been an advisor for and has received honoraria from Photocure and Ipsen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207