Variations in photodynamic diagnosis for bladder cancer due to the quality of endoscopic equipment

Abstract

Background: Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD)-assisted transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) has different treatment outcomes across institutions, as seen in conventional TURBT. We retrospectively compared the difference in quality between the two types of endoscopic equipment used for PDD-assisted TURBT in our institution.

Methods: This study enrolled 205 consecutive patients who underwent PDD-assisted TURBT. Patients were divided into two groups according to the endoscopic equipment used for PDD-assisted TURBT: Group A using the conventionally used endoscopic system and Aladuck LS-DLED and Group S using the Storz PDD system. Cystoscopy findings of white light (WL), fluorescence light (FL), and combination (positive if either WL or FL was positive) were recorded, and diagnostic quality of PDD was compared between both groups.

Results: Group A had 105 cases and 336 specimens, while Group S had 100 cases and 361 specimens, with no significant differences between patient characteristics. The tumor sensitivities of WL, FL, and combination in Group A was 71.9%, 77.1%, 90.5%, respectively, while in Group S, these were 71.5%, 92.2%, 96.1%, respectively. Group S had significantly higher sensitivity of FL and combination than Group A, as well as higher detection of carcinoma in situ lesions.

Conclusion: Both endoscopic systems had improved sensitivity with PDD-assistance versus WL only, with Group S having higher sensitivity. Differences in the quality of endoscopic equipment may influence the differences in treatment results with PDD-assisted TURBT across institutions.

Keywords: 5-aminolevulinic acid; Bladder cancer; Photodynamic diagnosis; Transurethral resection of bladder tumor.