4.3 Article

Incidence and Clinical Characteristics of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms as a Presenting Symptom for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Bladder Cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 198-203

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.02.09

关键词

Ureteral Obstruction; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Early Detection of Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as the sole presenting symptom for bladder cancer has traditionally been reported to be low. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients who presented with LUTS in the absence of gross or microscopic hematuria. Materials and Methods: We queried our database of bladder cancer patients at the Atlanta Veteran's Affairs Medical Center (AVAMC) to identify patients who presented solely with LUTS and were subsequently diagnosed with bladder cancer. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic variables were examined. Results: 4.1% (14/ 340) of bladder cancer patients in our series presented solely with LUTS. Mean age and Charlson Co-morbidity Index of these patients was 66.4 years (range = 52-83) and 3 (range = 0-7), respectively. Of the 14 patients in our cohort presenting with LUTS, 9 (64.3%), 4 (28.6%), and 1 (7.1%) patients presented with clinical stage Ta, carcinoma in Situ (CIS), and T2 disease. At a median follow-up of 3.79 years, recurrence occurred in 7 (50.0%) patients with progression occurring in 1 (7.1%) patient. 11 (78.6%) patients were alive and currently disease free, and 3 (21.4%) patients had died, with only one (7.1%) death attributable to bladder cancer. Conclusions: Our database shows a 4.1% incidence of LUTS as the sole presenting symptom in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer. This study suggests that urologists should have a low threshold for evaluating patients with unexplained LUTS for underlying bladder cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据