Table 3.
Ureteroscopy indications and findings
| No. Sessions Indicated | No. Successful Attempts with Documented Findings | No. Confirmed Malignant by Retrograde URS (%) | No. Confirmed Benign by Retrograde URS (%) | No. Unclear URS Findings or Not Documented | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abnormal imaging: | 59* | - | - | - | - |
| Filling defects: | 47 | 39 | 14 (36) | 24 (62) | 1 (unclear) |
| Kidney | 15 | 12 | 4 (33) | 8 (67) | 0 |
| Ureter | 30 | 26 | 9 (35) | 16 (62) | 1 (unclear) |
| Both | 2 | 1 | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 |
| Urothelial thickening | 9 | 7 | 1 (14) | 4 (57) | 2 (unclear) |
| Calculi | 4 | 2 | - | - | - |
| Pos cytology | 27 (of 56 evaluated) | 23 | 23 (100) | 0 (0) | 4 (not documented) |
| Neg cytology | 29 (of 56 evaluated) | 19 | 9 (47) | 10 (53) | 10 (not documented) |
| Pos FISH | 15 (of 17 evaluated) | 14 | 12 (86) | 2 (14) | 1 (not documented) |
| Neg FISH | 2 (of 17 evaluated) | 1 | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (not documented) |
*
There was 1 case with calculus and filling defect demonstrated on imaging at followup.