Incidental computed tomographic bladder wall abnormalities: harbinger or herring?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of incidental radiographically identified bladder wall abnormalities in the absence of other urologic indications for evaluation.

METHODS

All screening cystoscopy evaluations performed at our center over 4 years were identified using surgical logs. We identified patients for whom cystoscopy was performed for a radiographic bladder wall abnormality, defined as diffuse bladder wall thickening, focal bladder wall thickening, or intraluminal bladder mass. Patients with other indications for cystoscopy such as previous bladder cancer, pelvic radiation, or hematuria were excluded. The outcomes including any relevant biopsy or malignant diagnosis were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 2483 cystoscopies were performed in 1418 unique patients, with 34 (2%) performed for radiographic bladder wall abnormalities in the absence of other indications for cystoscopy. Eleven of 34 patients (32.4%) were evaluated for diffuse bladder wall thickening, of which 2 had high-grade carcinoma. Fifteen patients (44.1%) had focal bladder wall thickening, all negative at cystoscopy. Four of the 8 patients (23.5%) evaluated for bladder mass had disease (1 high grade, 3 low grade).

CONCLUSION

Although generally nonspecific for malignancy, incidental radiographic finding of bladder wall abnormality led to diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in >15% of our patients including 3 worrisome tumors. This finding argues for routine cystoscopy in patients with radiographic bladder wall abnormality even in the absence of hematuria.

Comparison of virtual cystoscopy and ultrasonography for bladder cancer detection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Bladder cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in patients presenting with haematuria. Early detection is crucial for improving patient prognosis. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the detection validity (sensitivity and specificity) of virtual cystoscopy (VC) and ultrasonography (US).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnosis validity of VC and US between January 1966 and December 2009. Meta-analysis methods were used to pool sensitivity and specificity and to construct a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies that included 3084 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for bladder cancer detection using CT virtual cystoscopy (CTVC), MR virtual cystoscopy (MRVC) and US was 0.939 (95% CI, 0.919-0.956), 0.908 (95% CI, 0.827-0.959) and 0.779 (95% CI, 0.744-0.812), respectively. The pooled specificity for bladder cancer detection using CTVC, MRVC and US was 0.981 (95% CI, 0.973-0.988), 0.948 (95% CI, 0.884-0.983) and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.953-0.969), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) estimate for CTVC (604.22) were significantly higher than for MRVC (144.35, P<0.001) and US (72.472, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that both CTVC and MRVC are better imaging methods for diagnosing bladder cancer than US. CTVC has higher diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity and DOR) for the detection of bladder cancer than either MRCT or US.