Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGaltung, Kristina Flor
dc.contributor.authorLauritzen, Peter Mæhre
dc.contributor.authorSandbæk, Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorBay, Dag
dc.contributor.authorPonzi, Erica
dc.contributor.authorBaco, Eduard
dc.contributor.authorCowan, Nigel C.
dc.contributor.authorNaas, Anca Michaela
dc.contributor.authorRud, Erik
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-18T05:56:44Z
dc.date.available2023-12-18T05:56:44Z
dc.date.created2023-09-05T11:36:32Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Urology Open Science. 2023, 55 1-10.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2666-1691
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3107903
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is uncertainty about the utility of multiphase computed tomog- raphy (CT) compared with single-phase CT in the routine examination of patients with visible haematuria (VH). Objective: To compare the accuracies of single nephrographic phase (NP) CT and four-phase CT in detecting urothelial carcinoma (UC). Design, setting, and participants: This was a single-centre, prospective, paired, nonin- feriority study of patients with painless VH referred for CT before cystoscopy between September 2019 and June 2021. Patients were followed up for 1 yr to ascertain UC diagnosis. Intervention: All patients underwent four-phase CT (control), from which single NP CT (experimental) was extracted. Both were independently assessed for UC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the differ- ence in accuracy between the control and experimental CT using a 7.5% noninferi- ority limit. Histologically verified UC defined a positive reference standard. Secondary outcomes included differences in sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC). All results are reported per patient. Resultsandlimitations: Ofthe308patientsincluded,UCwasdiagnosedin45(14.6%). The difference in accuracy between the control and experimental CT was 1.9% (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 6.7), demonstrating noninferiority. Sensitivity was 93.3% versus 91.1%, specificity was 83.7% versus 81.8%, NPV was 98.7% versus 98.2%, PPV was 49.4% versus 46.1%, and AUC was 0.96 versus 0.94 for the control versus experimental CT. Limitations included a low number of UC cases and no def- inite criteria for selecting a noninferiority limit. Conclusions: The accuracy of NP CT is not inferior to that of four-phase CT for detect- ing UC. Patient summary: This study shows that a computed tomography (CT) examination with only one contrast phase is no worse than a more complex CT examination for detecting cancer in the urinary tract among patients presenting with visible blood in the urine.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleIs a Single Nephrographic Phase Computed Tomography Sufficient for Detecting Urothelial Carcinoma in Patients with Visible Haematuria? A Prospective Paired Noninferiority Comparisonen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.euros.2023.06.005
dc.identifier.cristin2172459
dc.source.journalEuropean Urology Open Scienceen_US
dc.source.volume55en_US
dc.source.pagenumber1-10en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal