You have accessJournal of UrologyUrothelial Cancer: upper Tract Tumors (I)1 Apr 2013693 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINDINGS OF CTU'S DECODED BY A CONVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS OR AN EXPERIENCED URO-RADIOLOGIST AND THE ENDOSCOPIC FINDINGS IN PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED UPPER URINARY TRACT TCC Tomer Erlich, Orith Portnoy, Nir Kleinmann, Zohar Dotan, Menachem Laufer, Yoram Mor, Jacob Ramon, and harry winkler Tomer ErlichTomer Erlich ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Orith PortnoyOrith Portnoy ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Nir KleinmannNir Kleinmann ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Zohar DotanZohar Dotan ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Menachem LauferMenachem Laufer ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Yoram MorYoram Mor ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , Jacob RamonJacob Ramon ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author , and harry winklerharry winkler ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.249AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES CT Urography (CTU) is the gold standard diagnostic imaging in patients suspected to have upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTTCC) while uretero-nephroscopy (RIRS) can serve as an additive diagnostic tool with simultaneous therapeutic option. Yet, contemporary urological literature still considers endoscopy as non-mandatory procedure. We aimed to compare between the findings of CTU's decoded by community radiologists and an experienced uro-radiologist with the endoscopic findings in patients with suspected UTTCC METHODS Retrospective data were collected for patients who underwent diagnostic RIRS for suspected UTTCC between 2004-2011. Indication for endoscopy was either persistent hematuria, suspicious urine cytology or findings on CTU RESULTS 62 patients underwent CTU followed by a diagnostic RIRS performed by a single endourologist. In 34 cases, CTU studies were available and were independently decoded initially by community radiologists and subsequently by a single experienced uro-radiologist. The average patients' age was 61±11.8 years (34-87). The average follow-up was 31 months. In 16 patients (47%) the endoscopic and CTU findings decoded by community radiologists were inconsistent. Fourteen patients (41%) had false positive CTU findings with a normal RIRS, while in 2 patients (6%) the CTU was interpreted as normal and a tumor was eventually found on endoscopy. On the other hand, the RIRS and CTU findings of a single experienced uro-radiologist were inconsistent in 6 patients (18%); all of them had false positive CTU findings with a normal ureteronephroscopy. CONCLUSIONS In order to reduce the inconsistency between CTU and endoscopic findings, CTU should be preferably decoded by an experienced uro-radiologist. Nevertheless, RIRS should be still considered as a mandatory initial procedure in order to avoid unnecessary radical surgery in a significant number of patients and to prevent the possibility of missing the diagnosis of a tumor in others © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e284 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Tomer Erlich ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Orith Portnoy ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Nir Kleinmann ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Zohar Dotan ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Menachem Laufer ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Yoram Mor ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Jacob Ramon ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author harry winkler ramat gan, Israel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract