Mieke Bus

2 25 hospital); (OCT p-value = 0.320, CLE p-value = 0.435, SPIES p-value 0.435, NBI p-value = 0.949, PDD p-value 0.877, digital RIRS p-value = 0.722, urinary biomarkers p-value = 0.748). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biomarkers RIRS PDD NBI SPIES CLE OCT Answer distribution Yes No I do not know I am not familiar with this technique Figure 2: Additional benefit of techniques in the diagnostic work-up of upper urinary tract tumours. The answers are grouped in four categories; “Yes”, “No”, “I do not know and I am not familiar with this technique”. Discussion Over the past decade, conservative endoscopic treatment has gained increased interest for a selected group of patients with UTUC. Not only in case of a mandatory indication (patients with (functional) solitary kidney) but also for patients with low-volume, low- grade, low-stage disease and a healthy contralateral kidney. This radical change in treat- ment of low-risk UTUC requires high demands on the armamentarium and the expertise of the urologist. Our survey demonstrates an overview of current used techniques among urologists treating UTUC. Most urologists involved in the treatment of upper urinary tract tumours follow the guidelines in their diagnostic work-up of patients suspected for UTUC. Urologists participating in this survey consider the current available diagnostics insufficient to select patients for endoscopic management. 70.6% of the urologists participating in this survey responded that recent literature has changed their attitude towards conservative management of UTUC, underlining that the diagnosis and treatment of UTUC is rapidly changing. For this reason, the opportunity for endoscopic treatment (and therefore novel diagnostic techniques) will increase in the future.