Vis enkel innførsel

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


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal