IDENTIFY: The investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer: A multicentre cohort study

Prevalence of urinary tract cancer in the Spanish cohort of the IDENTIFY study

INTRODUCTION

Malignant tumors of the urinary tract are associated with high morbidity and mortality, and their prevalence can vary worldwide. Recently, the IDENTIFY study has published results on the prevalence of urinary tract cancer at a global level. This study evaluates the prevalence of cancer within the Spanish cohort of the IDENTIFY study to determine whether the published results can be extrapolated to our population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An analysis of the data from the Spanish cohort of patients in the IDENTIFY study was performed. This is a prospective cohort of patients referred to secondary care with suspected cancer, predominantly due to hematuria. Patients were recruited between December 2017 and December 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 706 patients from 9 Spanish centers were analyzed. Of these, 277 (39.2%) were diagnosed with cancer: 259 (36.7%) bladder cancer, 10 (1.4%) upper tract urothelial carcinoma, 9 (1.2%) renal cancer and 5 (0.7%) prostate cancer. Increasing age (OR 1.05 (95% CI 1.03-1.06; P < 0.001)), visible hematuria (VH) OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.13-4.24; P = 0.02)) and smoking (ex-smokers: OR 2.11(95% CI 1.30-3.40; P = 0.002); smokers: OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.40-3.95; P = 0.001)) were associated with higher probability of bladder cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the risk of bladder cancer in patients with VH and smoking habits. Bladder cancer presented the highest prevalence; higher than the prevalence reported in previous series and presented in the IDENTIFY study. Future work should evaluate other associated factors that allow us to create cancer prediction models to improve the detection of cancer in our patients.

Developing a Diagnostic Multivariable Prediction Model for Urinary Tract Cancer in Patients Referred with Haematuria: Results from the IDENTIFY Collaborative Study

BACKGROUND

Patient factors associated with urinary tract cancer can be used to risk stratify patients referred with haematuria, prioritising those with a higher risk of cancer for prompt investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prediction model for urinary tract cancer in patients referred with haematuria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective observational study was conducted in 10 282 patients from 110 hospitals across 26 countries, aged ≥16 yr and referred to secondary care with haematuria. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were the presence or absence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC], and renal cancer). Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was performed with site and country as random effects and clinically important patient-level candidate predictors, chosen a priori, as fixed effects. Predictors were selected primarily using clinical reasoning, in addition to backward stepwise selection. Calibration and discrimination were calculated, and bootstrap validation was performed to calculate optimism.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The unadjusted prevalence was 17.2% (n = 1763) for bladder cancer, 1.20% (n = 123) for UTUC, and 1.00% (n = 103) for renal cancer. The final model included predictors of increased risk (visible haematuria, age, smoking history, male sex, and family history) and reduced risk (previous haematuria investigations, urinary tract infection, dysuria/suprapubic pain, anticoagulation, catheter use, and previous pelvic radiotherapy). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.85-0.87). The model is limited to patients without previous urological malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

This cancer prediction model is the first to consider established and novel urinary tract cancer diagnostic markers. It can be used in secondary care for risk stratifying patients and aid the clinician's decision-making process in prioritising patients for investigation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We have developed a tool that uses a person's characteristics to determine the risk of cancer if that person develops blood in the urine (haematuria). This can be used to help prioritise patients for further investigation.

A Urine-based Genomic Assay Improves Risk Stratification for Patients with High-risk Hematuria Stratified According to the American Urological Association Guidelines

BACKGROUND

According to the recent American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on hematuria, patients are stratified into groups with low, intermediate, and high risk of urothelial carcinoma (UC). These risk groups are based on clinical factors and do not incorporate urine-based tumor markers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a urine-based genomic assay improves the redefined AUA risk stratification for hematuria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We selected patients with complete biomarker status, as assessed on urinary DNA, from a previously collected prospective Dutch hematuria cohort (n = 838). Patients were stratified into the AUA risk categories on the basis of sex, age, and type of hematuria. Biomarker status included mutation status for the FGFR3, TERT, and HRAS genes, and methylation status for the OTX1, ONECUT2, and TWIST1 genes.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was the diagnostic model performance for different hematuria risk groups. Further analyses assessed the pretest and post-test UC probability in the hematuria subgroups using a Fagan nomogram.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 65 patients (7.8%) were classified as low risk, 106 (12.6%) as intermediate risk, and 667 (79.6%) as high risk. The UC incidence differed significantly between the gross hematuria (21%, 98/457) and microscopic hematuria (4%, 14/381) groups (p < 0.001). All cancer cases were in the high-risk group, which had UC incidence of 16.8% (112/667). Application of the diagnostic model revealed robust performance among all risk groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.929-0.971). Depending on the risk group evaluated, a negative urine assay was associated with post-test UC probability of 0.3-2%, whereas a positive urine assay was associated with post-test UC probability of 31-42%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the value that a urine-based genomic assay adds to the AUA guideline stratification for patients with hematuria. It seems justified to safely withhold cystoscopy for patients with AUA low risk who have a negative urine assay. In addition, evaluation should be expedited for patients with AUA intermediate or high risk and a positive urine assay.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients who have blood in their urine (hematuria) can be classified as having low, intermediate, or high risk of having cancer in their urinary tract. We found that use of a urine-based genetic test improves the accuracy of predicting which patients are most likely to have cancer. Patients with a negative test may be able to avoid invasive tests, while further tests could be prioritized for patients with a positive test.

The IDENTIFY study: the investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC] and renal cancer) in patients referred to secondary care with haematuria, adjusted for established patient risk markers and geographical variation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an international multicentre prospective observational study. We included patients aged ≥16 years, referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. We estimated the prevalence of bladder cancer, UTUC, renal cancer and prostate cancer; stratified by age, type of haematuria, sex, and smoking. We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to adjust cancer prevalence for age, type of haematuria, sex, smoking, hospitals, and countries.

RESULTS

Of the 11 059 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 896 were included from 110 hospitals across 26 countries. The overall adjusted cancer prevalence (n = 2257) was 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-34.1), bladder cancer (n = 1951) 24.7% (95% CI 19.1-30.2), UTUC (n = 128) 1.14% (95% CI 0.77-1.52), renal cancer (n = 107) 1.05% (95% CI 0.80-1.29), and prostate cancer (n = 124) 1.75% (95% CI 1.32-2.18). The odds ratios for patient risk markers in the model for all cancers were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001), visible haematuria 3.47 (95% CI 2.90-4.15; P < 0.001), male sex 1.30 (95% CI 1.14-1.50; P < 0.001), and smoking 2.70 (95% CI 2.30-3.18; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of cancer prevalence across an international population is required to inform clinical guidelines. We are the first to report urinary tract cancer prevalence across an international population in patients referred to secondary care, adjusted for patient risk markers and geographical variation. Bladder cancer was the most prevalent disease. Visible haematuria was the strongest predictor for urinary tract cancer.