Objective: The role of ureteroscopy in the diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma is yet to be fully determined. We aimed to provide an up to date evaluation of its role and the emerging technologies in the fie...Objective: The role of ureteroscopy in the diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma is yet to be fully determined. We aimed to provide an up to date evaluation of its role and the emerging technologies in the field.Methods: A literature search of the last two decades (from 24th May, 2001 to 24th May, 2021) was carried out identifying 147 papers for potential inclusion within this narrative review.Results: Diagnostic ureteroscopy is undeniably useful in its ability to visualise and biopsy indeterminate lesions, and to risk stratify malignant lesions that may be suitable for kidney sparing surgery. However, an increased risk of intravesical recurrence following nephroureterectomy when a prior diagnostic ureteroscopy has been performed, inadequate sampling at biopsy, complications from the procedure, and difficult ureteric access are all potential drawbacks. Furthermore, whilst generally an accurate diagnostic procedure, it risks missing carcinoma in-situ lesions. Despite this, evidence shows that routine use of ureteroscopy changes the management of patients in a large proportion of cases, preventing unnecessary surgery or facilitating kidney sparing surgery. The overall rate of complications is low, and improved biopsy techniques and the use of tissue biomarkers for improved staging and grading are encouraging. The risks of delays to definitive management and post-ureteroscopy intravesical recurrence do not seem to affect survival, and trials are in progress to determine whether intravesical therapy can mitigate the latter. Further promising techniques are being investigated to improve shortcomings, particularly in relation to improved diagnosis of carcinoma in situ and preoperative staging.Conclusion: Ureteroscopy has a role in the diagnosis of upper tract malignancy, though whether it should be used routinely is yet to be determined.展开更多
文摘Objective: The role of ureteroscopy in the diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma is yet to be fully determined. We aimed to provide an up to date evaluation of its role and the emerging technologies in the field.Methods: A literature search of the last two decades (from 24th May, 2001 to 24th May, 2021) was carried out identifying 147 papers for potential inclusion within this narrative review.Results: Diagnostic ureteroscopy is undeniably useful in its ability to visualise and biopsy indeterminate lesions, and to risk stratify malignant lesions that may be suitable for kidney sparing surgery. However, an increased risk of intravesical recurrence following nephroureterectomy when a prior diagnostic ureteroscopy has been performed, inadequate sampling at biopsy, complications from the procedure, and difficult ureteric access are all potential drawbacks. Furthermore, whilst generally an accurate diagnostic procedure, it risks missing carcinoma in-situ lesions. Despite this, evidence shows that routine use of ureteroscopy changes the management of patients in a large proportion of cases, preventing unnecessary surgery or facilitating kidney sparing surgery. The overall rate of complications is low, and improved biopsy techniques and the use of tissue biomarkers for improved staging and grading are encouraging. The risks of delays to definitive management and post-ureteroscopy intravesical recurrence do not seem to affect survival, and trials are in progress to determine whether intravesical therapy can mitigate the latter. Further promising techniques are being investigated to improve shortcomings, particularly in relation to improved diagnosis of carcinoma in situ and preoperative staging.Conclusion: Ureteroscopy has a role in the diagnosis of upper tract malignancy, though whether it should be used routinely is yet to be determined.
