Evaluation of the New American Urological Association Guidelines Risk Classification for Hematuria.

PURPOSE Microhematuria is a prevalent condition and the American Urological Association (AUA) has developed a new risk-stratified approach for the evaluation of patients with microhematuria. Our objective was to provide the first evaluation of this important guideline. MATERIALS AND METHODS This multi-national cohort study combines contemporary patients from five clinical trials and two prospective registries who underwent urologic evaluation for hematuria. Patients were stratified into AUA risk strata (low, intermediate, or high risk) based on sex, age, degree of hematuria, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was the incidence of bladder cancer within each risk strata. RESULTS A total of 15,779 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 727 patients (4.6%) were classified as low-risk, 1,863 patients (11.8%) were classified as intermediate-risk, and 13,189 patients (83.6%) were classified as high-risk. The predominance of high-risk patients was consistent across all cohorts. A total of 857 bladder cancers were diagnosed with a bladder cancer incidence of 5.4%. Bladder cancer was more prevalent in men, smokers, older patients, and patients with gross hematuria. The cancer incidence for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups was 0.4% (3 patients), 1.0% (18 patients), and 6.3% (836 patients), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The new risk stratification system separates hematuria patients into clinically meaningful categories, with differing likelihoods of bladder cancer that would justify evaluating the low, intermediate and high-risk groups with incremental intensity. Furthermore, it provides the relative incidence of bladder cancer in each risk group which should facilitate patient counseling regarding the risks and benefits of evaluation for bladder cancer.

[1]  Y. Lotan,et al.  Validation of an mRNA-based Urine Test for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Patients with Haematuria. , 2020, European urology oncology.

[2]  C. Gross,et al.  Microhematuria: AUA/SUFU Guideline. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Long Wang,et al.  Re: van Kessel KEM, de Jong JJ, Ziel-van der Made ACJ, et al. A Urine-Based Genomic Assay to Triage Patients with Hematuria for Cystoscopy. , 2020, Journal of Urology.

[4]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  A Urine-Based Genomic Assay to Triage Patients with Hematuria for Cystoscopy. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[5]  R. Smith-Bindman,et al.  Comparison of the Harms, Advantages, and Costs Associated With Alternative Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hematuria. , 2019, JAMA internal medicine.

[6]  Y. Lotan,et al.  Evaluation of Hematuria in a Large Public Health Care System , 2019, Bladder cancer.

[7]  R. Matulewicz,et al.  Disparities in the diagnostic evaluation of microhematuriaand implications for the detection of urologic malignancy. , 2019, Urologic oncology.

[8]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018. , 2018, European urology.

[9]  A. Feber,et al.  Who Should Be Investigated for Haematuria? Results of a Contemporary Prospective Observational Study of 3556 Patients. , 2018, European urology.

[10]  M. Meng,et al.  Development of a 90‐Minute Integrated Noninvasive Urinary Assay for Bladder Cancer Detection , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[11]  H. Ghomrawi,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of Common Diagnostic Approaches for Evaluation of Asymptomatic Microscopic Hematuria , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[12]  E. Messing,et al.  Microscopic haematuria at time of diagnosis is associated with lower disease stage in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer , 2016, BJU international.

[13]  N. Siddiqui,et al.  Microhematuria in Postmenopausal Women: Adherence to Guidelines in a Tertiary Care Setting. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Y. Lotan,et al.  Gender and Bladder Cancer: A Collaborative Review of Etiology, Biology, and Outcomes. , 2016, European urology.

[15]  N. Kasabov,et al.  A holistic comparative analysis of diagnostic tests for urothelial carcinoma: a study of Cxbladder Detect, UroVysion® FISH, NMP22® and cytology based on imputation of multiple datasets , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[16]  L. Kavalieris,et al.  A segregation index combining phenotypic (clinical characteristics) and genotypic (gene expression) biomarkers from a urine sample to triage out patients presenting with hematuria who have a low probability of urothelial carcinoma , 2015, BMC Urology.

[17]  Y. Lotan,et al.  Prospective external validation of a bladder cancer detection model. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[18]  C. Seideman,et al.  What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up. , 2014, Urologic oncology.

[19]  S. Jacobsen,et al.  Stratifying risk of urinary tract malignant tumors in patients with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. , 2013, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[20]  Scott D. Miller,et al.  Diagnosis, evaluation and follow-up of asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) in adults: AUA guideline. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Y. Lotan,et al.  Are patients with hematuria appropriately referred to Urology? A multi-institutional questionnaire based survey. , 2010, Urologic oncology.

[22]  Y. Lotan,et al.  High‐risk patients with hematuria are not evaluated according to guideline recommendations , 2010, Cancer.

[23]  E. Messing,et al.  Detection of bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. , 2005, JAMA.