Predicting residual tumor for T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma before second transurethral resection specimens.

e17018 Background: Second transurethral resection (TUR), which is now recommended for all T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma, may not be necessary for patients with minimal tumor burden at the first TUR. T1 microstaging by the recognition of the muscularis mucosae or vascular plexus may be one promising method for evaluating tumor burden, but is sometimes technically difficult to assess. The number of TUR chips with tumor invading into lamina propria (T1chips) is easy to assess and can be available for all patients with T1 bladder urothelial carcinoma. Our aim was to determine clinicopathological factors which can predict the existence of residual tumor on the second TUR specimens for T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma. Methods: A total of 50 patients were diagnosed with T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma after the first TUR. We performed second TUR for the 50 patients. The median interval from the first and the second TUR was 6 week (range, 2-10). Voided urine cytology was taken in all patients between the first and the second TUR, at least 1 week after the first TUR. The existence of proper muscle tissue was confirmed in all specimens for the first and the second TUR. Tumor size, the number of tumor, the presence of carcinoma in situ (CIS), the number of TUR chips containing lamina propria invasion (T1chips) were recorded for the first TUR specimens. Results: A total of 20 (40%) patients had residual tumor on the second TUR. The second TUR stage was: T0 30 (60%); Ta/is 7 (14%); T1 9 (18%); and T2 4 (8%), respectively. In univariate analysis, positive urine cytology before the first TUR (48% vs 0% in negative), positive urine cytology between the first and second TUR (76% vs 21% in negative), and multiple T1 chips on the first TUR specimens (58% vs 6% in one T1 chip) were associated with residual tumor on the second TUR. In addition, in multivariate analysis, the number of T1 chips on the first TUR and urine cytology between the first and the second TUR were the significant predictors for residual tumor on the second TUR. Of 15 patients with multiple T1 chips and positive urine cytology between the first and the second TUR, 13 (87%) had residual tumor on the second TUR, compared to 0% (0/15) in those with one T1 chip and negative urine cytology between the first and the second TUR. Conclusions: Second TUR may not be necessary for all patients with T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma. The number of T1 chips on the first TUR and urine cytology between the first and the second TUR are useful factors for predicting second TUR stage.

Is a second look necessary in multiple and/or large Ta tumors?

Introduction: Most of the bladder cancers are tumors without muscle invasion at the time of diagnosis. Transurethral resection is the standard treatment in bladder tumors without muscle invasion. Proper review of transurethral resection is important for correct risk classification. In this study, our main objective was to show that a “second look” in patients with multiple and/or > 3 cm tumors regardless of T stage during the early term can be helpful in detection of possible residues and determining risk classification. Materials and methods: 156 patients with primary, multiple and/or > 3 cm tumors were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups as Group 1 (Ta), Group 2 (T1 without second TUR) and Group 3 (T1 with second TUR). Macroscopic tumor occurrence rates were compared in their 3rd month control cystoscopy. Results: Macroscopic tumor detection rates in patients’ 3rd month control cystoscopy were 21 (46.7%) in Group 1, 18 (30%) in Group 2 and 4 (7.8%) in Group 3. When compared with Group 3 patients, Group 1 and Group 2 had higher statistically significant macroscopic tumor detection rates (p = 0.001) Conclusion: A second look in patients with multiple and/or > 3 cm tumors during early term will enable the surgeons to detect possible tumors and do a better job in risk classification.

Evaluation of the role of second TUR for transurethral resection of bladder tumor in one piece (TURBO).

298 Background: Since transurethral resection of bladder tumor in one piece (TURBO) was reported in the Journal of Urology in 2000 by Ukai, some urologists carried out TURBO. We analyzed treatment results of TURBO in our hospital and examined the value of this procedure, especially for the pathological findings, recurrence and necessity of second TUR for TURBO. Methods: A total of 14 patients with bladder tumors carried out TURBO under spinal anesthesia, in some cases blocking the obtulater nerve, from April 2006 to June 2009 in our hospital. All cases were followed for over 1 year. The procedure is 1. point marking; 2. circular incision; 3. level incision; and 4. specimen retrieval using a needle electrode in accordance with the Ukai's method. We investigated pathological findings (margin situation), operation time, complications and recurrence. Results: It is possible to diagnose the precise pathlogical findings by TURBO. We judged the width and depth ew in sequential section. There were no complications during and after the operation. Operation time of TURBO (35–170 min) was longer than TUR-BT. Urethral catheter holding period and hospitalization period after TURBO was the same as TUR-BT. TURBO is a relatively safe procedure even for beginners. 5 cases had a recurrence in 13 cases. 2 cases had a recurrence in under 1 year, but the locations were other places. One case had a same place recurrence after 13 months. There were no cases of same place recurrence in under 1 year among margin-negative cases. Therfore we judged that ew-negative cases had no residual cancers. Conclusions: TURBO is a safe and useful procedure that provides precise pathological findings with minimal complications. Second TUR is not necessary for TURBO. TURBO has a possibility to be gold standard of the treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.