Practical use of investigations in patients with hematuria

Hematuria as a Sign of Kidney Stone Disease Evaluated Using Computed Tomography: A Review

Kidney stone is a common cause of acute pain in the abdomen in patients presenting to casualty. Being present in roughly 12% of the world's population makes it the most prevalent pathology of the urinary system. The ureters, kidneys, and bladder frequently develop calculi, resulting in hematuria. The most effective imaging technique for evaluating calculi is unenhanced helical computed tomography. The population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO)-formatted question was used to generate methodological medical subject heading (MeSH) phrases, which increased the search strategy's sensitivity in finding research. Some of these names ("hematuria") included "renal calculi" (MeSH) and "cone-beam computed tomography" (MeSH). Studies that satisfied these requirements were subjected to critical evaluation. The merits of the listed studies were evaluated using a unique quality assessment scale. The most accurate imaging diagnostic test for people with hematuria is multidetector computed tomography. If a patient over 40 presents with microscopic hematuria, a non-contrast computed tomography or ultrasound study should be performed, and if gross hematuria is observed, cystoscopy should be added. Pre- and post-contrast computed tomography scans and cystoscopy should be carried out on elderly patients.

Cancer Prevalence and Risk Stratification in Adults Presenting With Hematuria: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Objective

To calculate the prevalence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UT-UC), and lower urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (LT-UC) in patients with gross asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) and symptomatic microhematuria (SMH).

Patients and Methods

This study was a population-based retrospective descriptive study. The study was approved by both the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board and the Olmsted Medical Center Institutional Review Board, and the population used was Olmsted County residents. A total of 4453 patients who presented with an initial episode of hematuria from January 1, 2000, through December 30, 2010, were included. Of the 4453 patients (median age, 58 years; interquartile range, 44.6-73.3 years), 1487 (33.4%) had gross hematuria, 2305 (51.8%) had AMH, and 661 (14.8%) had SMH.

Results

In the 1487 patients with gross hematuria, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 1.3%, 0.8%, and 9.0%, respectively. In the 2305 patients with AMH, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 0.2%, 0.3%, and 1.6%, respectively. In the 661 patients with SMH, the prevalence of RCC, UT-UC, and LT-UC was 0.6%, 0.2%, and 0.3%, respectively. Age was the most relevant risk factor for any hematuria type.

Conclusion

This unique cohort study reported that the prevalence of RCC or UC in patients with AMH and SMH was low, especially in the young cohort, and a large number of intense work-ups, such as cystoscopy and computed tomography urography, currently conducted could be omitted if stratified by hematuria type and age.

Recommendations for the improvement of bladder cancer quality of care in Canada: A consensus document reviewed and endorsed by Bladder Cancer Canada (BCC), Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (CUOG), and Canadian Urological Association (CUA), December 2015

This initiative was undertaken in response to concerns regarding the variation in management and in outcomes of patients with bladder cancer throughout centres and geographical areas in Canada. Population-based data have also revealed that real-life survival is lower than expected based on data from clinical trials and/or academic centres. To address these perceived shortcomings and attempt to streamline and unify treatment approaches to bladder cancer in Canada, a multidisciplinary panel of expert clinicians was convened last fall for a two-day working group consensus meeting. The panelists included urologic oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, patient representatives, a genitourinary pathologist, and an enterostomal therapy nurse. The following recommendations and summaries of supporting evidence represent the results of the presentations, debates, and discussions. Methodology

Computed tomography-urography for upper urinary tract imaging: is it required for all patients who present with hematuria?

PURPOSE

To define in which patients who present with microscopic or macroscopic hematuria CT urography (CTU) is indicated as an imaging mode for the upper urinary tract (UUT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study on consecutive patients who attended a modern protocol-driven hematuria clinic from January 2006 to February 2010. Standard tests (history taking, physical examination, urinalysis via dipstick method, ultrasonography of kidneys and bladder performed by urologists, cystoscopy, and cytology) were directed to all patients, whereas the mode of additional UUT imaging (ultrasonography by a radiologist or four-phase CTU/magnetic resonance (MR) urography (MRU) when CTU was contraindicated) was selected according to a risk factor-based management algorithm. The added value of cross-sectional urography (CTU/MRU) supplementary to ultrasonography (by urologists) to detect renal masses, UUT tumors, and stones was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analysis on predictive factors for cross-sectional urography result were performed.

RESULTS

From the total of 841 patients, lesions that might account for hematuria could not be identified in 462 (54.9%), whereas in 250 (29.7%) and 124 (14.7%) patients, hematuria was from benign and malignant disease, respectively. Cross-sectional urography revealed relevant UUT lesions in 73 of 525 (13.9%) patients. Only result of ultrasonography (odds ratio [OR] 7.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0-14.9), P<0.001) and type of hematuria (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.1, P=0.01) were significant predictors for cross-sectional urography result. In 44 of 456 (9.6%) patients with no abnormalities on ultrasonography, CTU/MRU revealed that these were false negatives, with most lesions missed being stones. In 253 of 309 (81.9%) patients with macroscopic hematuria, no lesions were detected in the UUT on CTU/MRU, in contrast to 199 of 216 patients (92.1%) with microscopic hematuria.

CONCLUSION

For patients who present with microscopic hematuria, ultrasonography is sufficient to exclude significant UUT disease. For patients with macroscopic hematuria, the likelihood of finding UUT disease is higher, and a CTU as a first-line test seems justified.