Journal of Clinical Medicine (Apr 2024)

Variation in Follow-Up after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer—An Inventory Roundtable and Literature Review

  • Roberto Contieri,
  • Renate Pichler,
  • Francesco del Giudice,
  • Gautier Marcq,
  • Andrea Gallioli,
  • Simone Albisinni,
  • Francesco Soria,
  • David d’Andrea,
  • Wojciech Krajewski,
  • Diego M. Carrion,
  • Andrea Mari,
  • Bas W. G. van Rhijn,
  • Marco Moschini,
  • Benjamin Pradere,
  • Laura S. Mertens

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092637
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 9
p. 2637

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords