Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39877557›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2025

The significance of isolated de novo red patches in the bladder in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer: Results from the IDENTIFY study.

Sinan Khadhouri, Kevin Gallagher, Kenneth R MacKenzie, Taimur T Shah, Chuanyu Gao, Eleanor Zimmermann, Miles Mannas, Taeweon Lee, Giancarlo Marra, Juan Gomez Rivas and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Sinan KhadhouriUniversity of St Andrews St Andrews United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1836-8992
Kevin GallagherWestern General Hospital Edinburgh United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-5336
Kenneth R MacKenzieSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust Sunderland United Kingdom.
Taimur T ShahImperial College London London United Kingdom.
Chuanyu GaoAddenbrookes Hospital Cambridge United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9824-6468
Eleanor ZimmermannUniversity Hospitals Plymouth Plymouth United Kingdom.
Miles MannasDepartment of Urologic Sciences University of British Columbia Vancouver Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7706-3830
Taeweon LeeDepartment of Urologic Sciences University of British Columbia Vancouver Canada.
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza University of Turin Turin Italy.
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology La Paz University Hospital Madrid Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0556-3035
Gautier MarcqUrology Department Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille Lille France.
Mark A AssmusSection of Urology, Department of Surgery University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3615-9251
Taha UcarPrivate Medicabil Hospital Department of Urology Bursa Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7684-3632
Francesco ClapsUrological Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences University of Trieste Trieste Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2812-5553
Matteo BoltriDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology San Giovanni di Dio Hospital Gorizia Italy.
Giuseppe PizzutoUrological Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences University of Trieste Trieste Italy.
Tara BurnhopeUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham United Kingdom.
Nkwam NkwamUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust Derby United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-6388
George TanasescuDepartment of Urology Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth United Kingdom.
Nicholas E BoxallSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford United Kingdom.
Alison P DowneyDoncaster Royal Infirmary Doncaster United Kingdom.
Troy A SukhuUniversity of North Carolina Hospitals Chapel Hill NC USA.
Marta Antón-JuanillaDepartment of Urology Hospital Universitario Cruces Barakaldo Spain.
Sonpreet RaiMilton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Milton Keynes United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5737-2700
Madeline MooreUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1037-5861
Kathryn Bandeira de MelloRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Exeter United Kingdom.
Sian ParsonsSouthmead Hospital Bristol United Kingdom.
John S McGrathRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Exeter United Kingdom.
Veeru KasivisvanathanUniversity College London London United Kingdom.
IDENTIFY Study Group: Pubmed indexed collaborator authors

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the contemporary malignancy rate in isolated de novo red patches in the bladder and associated risk factors for better selection of red patch biopsy. Patients: Patients from the IDENTIFY dataset; Patients referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer and found to have isolated de novo red patches on cystoscopy. Methods: We reported the unadjusted cancer prevalence in isolated de novo red patches that were biopsied; multivariable logistic regression was used to explore cancer-associated risk factors including age, sex, smoking, type of haematuria, LUTS, UTIs and a suspicious-looking red patch (as reported by the cystoscopist). Sub-analysis of these by clinical role and experience was performed. Results: A total of 1110 patients with isolated de novo red patches were included. 41.5% (n = 461) were biopsied, with a malignancy rate of 12.8% (59/461), which was significantly higher in suspicious versus non-suspicious red patches (19.1% vs. 2.81%, p < 0.01). There was a significant association between bladder cancer and age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.01), smoking history (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.09-6.27, p = 0.03) and suspicious-looking patch (OR 6.50, 95% CI 2.47-17.1, p < 0.01). The majority of malignancies were in over 60-year-olds. Malignancy rates in suspicious versus non-suspicious red patches did not differ significantly between clinical roles or experiences.Limitations included subjectivity in classifying a suspicious patch and selection bias as not all patches were biopsied. Conclusions: Many patients still undergo unnecessary biopsies under general anaesthetic for isolated de novo red patches. Clinicians should consider the patient's age, smoking status and how suspicious-looking the patch is, before deciding on surveillance versus biopsy to improve cancer diagnostic yield.

Indexed as

biopsybladder cancercystoscopyhaematuriared patchrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID39877557
PMCPMC11771498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.