Pretreatment Staging of Urothelial Cancer

Variant: 1 Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US pelvis (bladder)	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US pelvis (bladder)	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis (bladder)	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Samantha J. Barker, MD^a; Esra Soylu, MD^b; Brian C. Allen, MD^c; Moises Auron, MD^d; Marielia Gerena, MD^e; Yair Lotan, MD^f; Tracy L. Rose, MD^g; Abhishek Solanki, MD^h; Devaki Shilpa Surasi, MDⁱ; Baris Turkbey, MD^j; Pat Whitworth III, MD^k; Aytekin Oto, MD^l.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
E. CT abdomen with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
F. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
G. CT abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
H. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
I. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
J. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
K. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
L. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
M. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
N. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
O. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
P. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
R. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
S. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
T. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
U. MRI head without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
V. MRI head without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
[. Radiography chest

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
\. Radiography intravenous urography

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
]. US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal

Variant 1: Adult. Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
^. US pelvis (bladder)

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
E. CT abdomen with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
F. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
G. CT abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
H. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
I. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
J. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
K. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
L. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
M. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
N. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
O. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
P. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
R. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
S. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
T. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
U. MRI head without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
V. MRI head without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
[. Radiography chest

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
\. Radiography intravenous urography

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
]. US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal

Variant 2: Adult. Muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pretreatment staging.
^. US pelvis (bladder)

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
E. CT abdomen with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
F. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
G. CT abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
H. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
I. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
J. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
K. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
L. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
M. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
N. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
O. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
P. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
R. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
S. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
T. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
U. MRI head without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
V. MRI head without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
[. Radiography chest

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
\. Radiography intravenous urography

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
]. US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal

Variant 3: Adult. Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer. Pretreatment staging.
^. US pelvis (bladder)

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17-48.
2.	Zhang J, Gerst S, Lefkowitz RA, Bach A. Imaging of bladder cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(1):183-205.
3.	Amling CL. Diagnosis and management of superficial bladder cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. 2001;25(4):219-278.
4.	Kirkali Z, Chan T, Manoharan M, et al. Bladder cancer: epidemiology, staging and grading, and diagnosis. Urology. 2005;66(6 Suppl 1):4-34.
5.	Vikram R, Sandler CM, Ng CS. Imaging and staging of transitional cell carcinoma: part 2, upper urinary tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(6):1488-1493.
6.	Wang D, Zhang WS, Xiong MH, Yu M, Xu JX. Bladder tumors: dynamic contrast-enhanced axial imaging, multiplanar reformation, three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual cystoscopy using helical CT. Chin Med J (Engl). 2004;117(1):62-66.
7.	Mandalapu RS, Remzi M, de Reijke TM, et al. Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on upper tract urothelial carcinoma 2016: treatment of low-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma. [Review]. World Journal of Urology. 35(3):355-365, 2017 Mar.
8.	Roupret M, Seisen T, Birtle AJ, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2023 Update. [Review]. European Urology. 84(1):49-64, 2023 07.Eur Urol. 84(1):49-64, 2023 07.
9.	Roth B, Wissmeyer MP, Zehnder P, et al. A new multimodality technique accurately maps the primary lymphatic landing sites of the bladder. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):205-211.
10.	Lodde M, Lacombe L, Friede J, Morin F, Saourine A, Fradet Y. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography with computed tomography for staging of urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):658-663.
11.	Saokar A, Islam T, Jantsch M, Saksena MA, Hahn PF, Harisinghani MG. Detection of lymph nodes in pelvic malignancies with Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Clin Imaging. 2010;34(5):361-366.
12.	Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M, et al. Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2014;273:125-35.
13.	Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017.
14.	Malkowicz SB, van Poppel H, Mickisch G, et al. Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Urology. 2007; 69(1 Suppl):3-16.
15.	Griffiths G, Hall R, Sylvester R, Raghavan D, Parmar MK. International phase III trial assessing neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of the BA06 30894 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2171-7.
16.	Zaid HB, Patel SG, Stimson CJ, et al. Trends in the utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results from the National Cancer Database. Urology 2014;83:75-80.
17.	Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Abern M, et al. NCCN Guidelines R Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 20(8):866-878, 2022 08.
18.	Funt SA, Rosenberg JE. Systemic, perioperative management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and future horizons. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:221-34.
19.	Coleman JA, Clark PE, Bixler BR, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Non-Metastatic Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: AUA/SUO Guideline. Journal of Urology. 209(6):1071-1081, 2023 06.
20.	Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig JL, et al. Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy Versus Open Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An European Association of Urology Guidelines Systematic Review. European Urology Focus. 5(2):205-223, 2019 03.
21.	Beyersdorff D, Zhang J, Schoder H, Bochner B, Hricak H. Bladder cancer: can imaging change patient management? Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(1):98-104.
22.	Babjuk M, Burger M, Comperat EM, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (TaT1 and Carcinoma In Situ) - 2019 Update. [Review]. Eur Urol. 76(5):639-657, 2019 Nov.
23.	Hartman R, Kawashima A. Lower tract neoplasm: Update of imaging evaluation. [Review]. European Journal of Radiology. 97:119-130, 2017 Dec.Eur J Radiol. 97:119-130, 2017 Dec.
24.	Wolfman DJ, Marko J, Nikolaidis P, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Hematuria. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 17(5S):S138-S147, 2020 May.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 17(5S):S138-S147, 2020 May.
25.	Allen BC, Oto A, Akin O, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Post-Treatment Surveillance of Bladder Cancer. [Review]. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 16(11S):S417-S427, 2019 Nov.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 16(11S):S417-S427, 2019 Nov.
26.	Shariat SF, Palapattu GS, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Discrepancy between clinical and pathologic stage: impact on prognosis after radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:137-49; discussion 49-51.
27.	Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Limitations of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1693-1696.
28.	Tritschler S, Mosler C, Straub J, et al. Staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer: can computerized tomography help us to decide on local treatment? World J of Urol 2012;30:827-31.
29.	Tritschler S, Mosler C, Tilki D, Buchner A, Stief C, Graser A. Interobserver variability limits exact preoperative staging by computed tomography in bladder cancer. Urology 2012;79:1317-21.
30.	Rajesh A, Sokhi H, Fung R, Mulcahy KA, Bankart MJ. Role of whole-body staging computed tomographic scans for detecting distant metastases in patients with bladder cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35(3):402-405.
31.	European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines Panel for Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer (MIBC). Available at: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/muscle-invasive-and-metastatic-bladder-cancer.
32.	Powles T, Bellmunt J, Comperat E, et al. Bladder cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022;33:244-58.
33.	Juri H, Koyama M, Azuma H, Narumi Y. Are there any metastases to the chest in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients on follow-up computed tomography?. International Urology & Nephrology. 50(10):1771-1778, 2018 Oct.Int Urol Nephrol. 50(10):1771-1778, 2018 Oct.
34.	MacVicar AD. Bladder cancer staging. BJU Int. 2000;86 Suppl 1:111-122.
35.	Mirmomen SM, Shinagare AB, Williams KE, Silverman SG, Malayeri AA. Preoperative imaging for locoregional staging of bladder cancer. [Review]. Abdominal Radiology. 44(12):3843-3857, 2019 12.Abdom Radiol. 44(12):3843-3857, 2019 12.
36.	Trinh TW, Glazer DI, Sadow CA, Sahni VA, Geller NL, Silverman SG. Bladder cancer diagnosis with CT urography: test characteristics and reasons for false-positive and false-negative results. Abdominal Radiology. 43(3):663-671, 2018 03.Abdom Radiol. 43(3):663-671, 2018 03.
37.	Jinzaki M, Matsumoto K, Kikuchi E, et al. Comparison of CT urography and excretory urography in the detection and localization of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196(5):1102-1109.
38.	Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, Hartman RP, McCollough CH, King BF, Jr. CT urography. Radiographics. 2004;24 Suppl 1:S35-54; discussion S55-38.
39.	Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Cowan NC, Weizer AZ, Ellis JH. MDCT Urography: Exploring a new paradigm for imaging of bladder cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1501-1508.
40.	Chen L, Zhang G, Xu L, et al. Preoperative CT features to predict risk stratification of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Abdominal Radiology. 48(2):659-668, 2023 02.Abdom Radiol. 48(2):659-668, 2023 02.
41.	Yajima S, Yoshida S, Takahara T, et al. Usefulness of the inchworm sign on DWI for predicting pT1 bladder cancer progression. Eur Radiol. 29(7):3881-3888, 2019 Jul.
42.	Rosenkrantz AB, Friedman KP, Ponzo F, et al. Prospective Pilot Study to Evaluate the Incremental Value of PET Information in Patients With Bladder Cancer Undergoing 18F-FDG Simultaneous PET/MRI. Clin Nucl Med. 42(1):e8-e15, 2017 Jan.
43.	Eulitt PJ, Altun E, Sheikh A, et al. Pilot Study of [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET)/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for Staging of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC). Clin Genitourin Cancer. 18(5):378-386.e1, 2020 10.
44.	Civelek AC, Niglio SA, Malayeri AA, et al. Clinical value of 18FDG PET/MRI in muscle-invasive, locally advanced, and metastatic bladder cancer. Urologic Oncology. 39(11):787.e17-787.e21, 2021 11.UROL. ONCOL.. 39(11):787.e17-787.e21, 2021 11.
45.	Shinagare AB, Ramaiya NH, Jagannathan JP, Fennessy FM, Taplin ME, Van den Abbeele AD. Metastatic pattern of bladder cancer: correlation with the characteristics of the primary tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):117-122.
46.	Anderson TS, Regine WF, Kryscio R, Patchell RA. Neurologic complications of bladder carcinoma: a review of 359 cases. Cancer. 2003;97(9):2267-2272.
47.	Tekes A, Kamel I, Imam K, et al. Dynamic MRI of bladder cancer: evaluation of staging accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):121-127.
48.	Wang HJ, Pui MH, Guo Y, et al. Multiparametric 3-T MRI for differentiating low-versus high-grade and category T1 versus T2 bladder urothelial carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:330-4.
49.	Klein L, Pollack HM. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the female lower urinary tract. [Review] [73 refs]. Radiol Clin North Am. 30(4):843-60, 1992 Jul.
50.	Yoshida S, Koga F, Kawakami S, et al. Initial experience of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to assess therapeutic response to induction chemoradiotherapy against muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urology. 2010; 75(2):387-391.
51.	Ghafoori M, Shakiba M, Ghiasi A, Asvadi N, Hosseini K, Alavi M. Value of MRI in local staging of bladder cancer. Urol J 2013;10:866-72.
52.	Gupta N, Sureka B, Kumar MM, Malik A, Bhushan TB, Mohanty NK. Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance image in staging and grading of carcinoma bladder with histopathological correlation. Urol Ann 2015;7:199-204.
53.	Rabie E, Faeghi F, Izadpanahi MH, Dayani MA. Role of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging of Bladder Cancer. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:TC01-5.
54.	Rajesh A, Sokhi HK, Fung R, Mulcahy KA, Bankart MJ. Bladder cancer: evaluation of staging accuracy using dynamic MRI. Clin Radiol 2011;66:1140-5.
55.	Nguyen HT, Pohar KS, Jia G, et al. Improving bladder cancer imaging using 3-T functional dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 49(6):390-5, 2014 Jun.
56.	Panebianco V, Narumi Y, Altun E, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Bladder Cancer: Development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). [Review]. European Urology. 74(3):294-306, 2018 09.Eur Urol. 74(3):294-306, 2018 09.
57.	Wang H, Luo C, Zhang F, et al. Multiparametric MRI for Bladder Cancer: Validation of VI-RADS for the Detection of Detrusor Muscle Invasion. Radiology. 291(3):668-674, 2019 06.
58.	Kufukihara R, Kikuchi E, Shigeta K, et al. Diagnostic performance of the vesical imaging-reporting and data system for detecting muscle-invasive bladder cancer in real clinical settings: Comparison with diagnostic cystoscopy. Urologic Oncology. 40(2):61.e1-61.e8, 2022 02.UROL. ONCOL.. 40(2):61.e1-61.e8, 2022 02.
59.	Makboul M, Farghaly S, Abdelkawi IF. Multiparametric MRI in differentiation between muscle invasive and non-muscle invasive urinary bladder cancer with vesical imaging reporting and data system (VI-RADS) application. British Journal of Radiology. 92(1104):20190401, 2019 Dec.Br J Radiol. 92(1104):20190401, 2019 Dec.
60.	Hagen F, Norz V, Thaiss WM, et al. Diagnostic benefit of multiparametric MRI over contrast-enhanced CT in patients with bladder cancer: A single-center 1-year experience. European Journal of Radiology. 146:110059, 2022 Jan.Eur J Radiol. 146:110059, 2022 Jan.
61.	Daneshmand S, Ahmadi H, Huynh LN, Dobos N. Preoperative staging of invasive bladder cancer with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: results from a prospective study. Urology. 2012;80(6):1313-1318.
62.	Takahashi N, Kawashima A, Glockner JF, Hartman RP, Kim B, King BF. MR urography for suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 19(4):912-23, 2009 Apr.
63.	Takahashi N, Kawashima A, Glockner JF, et al. Small (<2-cm) upper-tract urothelial carcinoma: evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled echo MR urography. Radiology. 2008;247(2):451-457.
64.	Tadin T, Sotosek S, Rahelic D, Fuckar Z. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound T-staging of the urinary bladder cancer in comparison with histology in elderly patients. Coll Antropol 2014;38:1123-6.
65.	Datta SN, Allen GM, Evans R, Vaughton KC, Lucas MG. Urinary tract ultrasonography in the evaluation of haematuria--a report of over 1,000 cases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 84(3):203-5, 2002 May.
66.	Fang YC, Chou YH, Hsu CC, Chang T. Staging of bladder cancer by transabdominal real-time ultrasound. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei). 1993;52(1):21-25.
67.	Ozden E, Turgut AT, Yesil M, Gogus C, Gogus O. A new parameter for staging bladder carcinoma: ultrasonographic contact length and height-to-length ratio. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(9):1137-1142.
68.	Wagner B, Nesslauer T, Bartsch G, Jr., Hautmann RE, Gottfried HW. Staging bladder carcinoma by three-dimensional ultrasound rendering. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31(3):301-305.
69.	Park HJ, Hong SS, Kim JH, et al. Tumor detection and serosal invasion of bladder cancer: role of three-dimensional volumetric reconstructed US. Abdom Imaging. 35(3):265-70, 2010 Jun.
70.	Li QY, Tang J, He EH, et al. Clinical utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation between noninvasive and invasive neoplasms of urinary bladder. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2936-42.
71.	Caruso G, Salvaggio G, Campisi A, et al. Bladder tumor staging: comparison of contrast-enhanced and gray-scale ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):151-156.
72.	Ge X, Lan ZK, Chen J, Zhu SY. Effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detecting the staging and grading of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Ultrasonography. 23(1):29-35, 2021 Feb 18.Med. ultrasonography. 23(1):29-35, 2021 Feb 18.
73.	Li C, Gu Z, Ni P, et al. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Journal of Cancer Research & Therapeutics. 17(5):1179-1185, 2021 Nov.J Cancer Res Ther. 17(5):1179-1185, 2021 Nov.
74.	Kuroda M, Meguro N, Maeda O, et al. Stage specific follow-up strategy after cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder. Int J Urol. 2002;9(3):129-133.
75.	Brismar J, Gustafson T. Bone scintigraphy in staging of bladder carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1988;29(2):251-252.
76.	Braendengen M, Winderen M, Fossa SD. Clinical significance of routine pre-cystectomy bone scans in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Br J Urol. 1996;77(1):36-40.
77.	Ghorbani H, Soltani S, Zakavi SR, et al. Bone scan with technetium 99m-methyl diphosphonate, the missing link in the initial staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 43(6):675-679, 2022 Jun 01.Nucl Med Commun. 43(6):675-679, 2022 Jun 01.
78.	Taher AN, Kotb MH. Bone metastases in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J. Egypt. Natl. Cancer Inst.. 18(3):203-8, 2006 Sep.
79.	Maganty A, Turner RM 2nd, Yabes JG, Davies BJ, Heron DE, Jacobs BL. Downstream Studies Following the Use of Bone Scan in the Staging of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Urology. 129:74-78, 2019 Jul.
80.	Furrer MA, Grueter T, Bosshard P, et al. Routine Preoperative Bone Scintigraphy Has Limited Impact on the Management of Patients with Invasive Bladder Cancer. European Urology Focus. 7(5):1052-1060, 2021 Sep.Eur Urol Focus. 7(5):1052-1060, 2021 Sep.
81.	Lee CH, Tan CH, Faria SC, Kundra V. Role of Imaging in the Local Staging of Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 208(6):1193-1205, 2017 Jun.
82.	Xu Y, Lou J, Gao Z, Zhan M. Computed Tomography Image Features under Deep Learning Algorithm Applied in Staging Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer and Detection on Ceramide Glycosylation. Computational & Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2022:7979523, 2022.Comput. math. methods med.. 2022:7979523, 2022.
83.	Crozier J, Papa N, Perera M, et al. Comparative sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities in staging bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 37(4):667-690, 2019 Apr.
84.	Girard A, Vila Reyes H, Shaish H, et al. The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Guiding Precision Medicine for Invasive Bladder Carcinoma. [Review]. Front. oncol.. 10:565086, 2020.
85.	Moussa M, Chakra MA, Saad W, Dellis A, Papatsoris A. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT scan compared to CT-scan alone for lymph node staging before radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. Urologic Oncology. 39(12):833.e9-833.e17, 2021 12.UROL. ONCOL.. 39(12):833.e9-833.e17, 2021 12.
86.	Yuan JB, Zu XB, Miao JG, Wang J, Chen MF, Qi L. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection system based on preoperative primary tumour stage (T stage) by computed tomography in urothelial bladder cancer: results of a single-institution prospective study. BJU Int 2013;112:E87-91.
87.	Horn T, Zahel T, Adt N, et al. Evaluation of Computed Tomography for Lymph Node Staging in Bladder Cancer Prior to Radical Cystectomy. Urol Int 2016;96:51-6.
88.	Turkbey B, Basaran C, Karcaaltincaba M, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis in urinary bladder cancer. Clin Imaging. 2008;32(3):192-195.
89.	Browne RF, Meehan CP, Colville J, Power R, Torreggiani WC. Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: spectrum of imaging findings. [Review] [45 refs]. Radiographics. 25(6):1609-27, 2005 Nov-Dec.
90.	Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int 2014;114:389-95.
91.	Nayak B, Dogra PN, Naswa N, Kumar R. Diuretic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection and locoregional staging of urinary bladder cancer: prospective evaluation of a novel technique. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:386-93.
92.	Soubra A, Hayward D, Dahm P, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Urol 2016;34:1229-37.
93.	Pichler R, De Zordo T, Fritz J, et al. Pelvic Lymph Node Staging by Combined 18F-FDG-PET/CT Imaging in Bladder Cancer Prior to Radical Cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 15(3):e387-e395, 2017 06.
94.	Girard A, Rouanne M, Taconet S, et al. Integrated analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT improves preoperative lymph node staging for patients with invasive bladder cancer. European Radiology. 29(8):4286-4293, 2019 Aug.Eur Radiol. 29(8):4286-4293, 2019 Aug.
95.	Lu YY, Chen JH, Liang JA, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 81(9):2411-6, 2012 Sep.
96.	Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(26):4314-4320.
97.	Apolo AB, Riches J, Schoder H, et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3973-3978.
98.	Kollberg P, Almquist H, Blackberg M, et al. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography/computed tomography improves staging in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for radical cystectomy. Scandinavian Journal of Urology. 49(4):296-301, 2015.Scand J Urol. 49(4):296-301, 2015.
99.	Mertens LS, Fioole-Bruining A, Vegt E, Vogel WV, van Rhijn BW, Horenblas S. Impact of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) on management of patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle. BJU Int 2013;112:729-34.
100.	Voskuilen CS, van Gennep EJ, Einerhand SMH, et al. Staging 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Changes Treatment Recommendation in Invasive Bladder Cancer. European Urology Oncology. 5(3):366-369, 2022 06.Eur Urol Oncol. 5(3):366-369, 2022 06.
101.	Bertolaso P, Brouste V, Cazeau AL, et al. Impact of 18 FDG- PET CT in the Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 20(3):297-297.e6, 2022 06.Clin Genitourin Cancer. 20(3):297-297.e6, 2022 06.
102.	Picchio M, Treiber U, Beer AJ, et al. Value of 11C-choline PET and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer: correlation with histopathologic findings. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):938-944.
103.	Brunocilla E, Ceci F, Schiavina R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (11)C-choline PET/CT in preoperative lymph node staging of bladder cancer: a systematic comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and histologic findings. Clin Nucl Med 2014;39:e308-12.
104.	Ceci F, Bianchi L, Graziani T, et al. 11C-choline PET/CT and bladder cancer: lymph node metastasis assessment with pathological specimens as reference standard. Clin Nucl Med 2015;40:e124-8.
105.	Golan S, Sopov V, Baniel J, Groshar D. Comparison of 11C-choline with 18F-FDG in positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for staging urothelial carcinoma: a prospective study. J Urol 2011;186:436-41.
106.	Caglic I, Panebianco V, Vargas HA, et al. MRI of Bladder Cancer: Local and Nodal Staging. [Review]. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 52(3):649-667, 2020 09.J Magn Reson Imaging. 52(3):649-667, 2020 09.
107.	El-Assmy A, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Mosbah A, et al. Bladder tumour staging: comparison of diffusion- and T2-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19(7):1575-1581.
108.	Kobayashi S, Koga F, Yoshida S, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: potential utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values as a biomarker to predict clinical aggressiveness. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2178-86.
109.	Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Ito M, et al. Urinary bladder cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging--accuracy for diagnosing T stage and estimating histologic grade. Radiology. 2009; 251(1):112-121.
110.	Wu LM, Chen XX, Xu JR, et al. Clinical value of T2-weighted imaging combined with diffusion-weighted imaging in preoperative T staging of urinary bladder cancer: a large-scale, multiobserver prospective study on 3.0-T MRI. Acad Radiol 2013;20:939-46.
111.	Razik A, Das CJ, Sharma S, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T in predicting muscle invasion in urinary bladder cancer: utility of evaluating the morphology of the reactive tumor stalk. Abdominal Radiology. 43(9):2431-2441, 2018 09.Abdom Radiol. 43(9):2431-2441, 2018 09.
112.	Barentsz JO, Ruijs SH, Strijk SP. The role of MR imaging in carcinoma of the urinary bladder. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(5):937-947.
113.	Chlapoutakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Yarmenitis S, Damilakis J. Performance of computed tomographic urography in diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, in patients presenting with hematuria: Systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review] [17 refs]. Eur J Radiol. 73(2):334-8, 2010 Feb.
114.	Fritz GA, Schoellnast H, Deutschmann HA, Quehenberger F, Tillich M. Multiphasic multidetector-row CT (MDCT) in detection and staging of transitional cell carcinomas of the upper urinary tract. Eur Radiol. 16(6):1244-52, 2006 Jun.
115.	Gandrup KL, Nordling J, Balslev I, Thomsen HS. Upper urinary tract tumors: how does the contrast enhancement measured in a split-bolus CTU correlate to histological staging?. Acta Radiol. 55(6):761-8, 2014 Jul.
116.	Mammen S, Krishna S, Quon M, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Qualitative and Quantitative Computed Tomography Analysis for Diagnosis of Pathological Grade and Stage in Upper Tract Urothelial Cell Carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 42(2):204-210, 2018 Mar/Apr.
117.	Honda Y, Nakamura Y, Teishima J, et al. Clinical staging of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma for T staging: Review and pictorial essay. [Review]. International Journal of Urology. 26(11):1024-1032, 2019 11.
118.	Ito Y, Kikuchi E, Tanaka N, et al. Preoperative hydronephrosis grade independently predicts worse pathological outcomes in patients undergoing nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 185(5):1621-6, 2011 May.
119.	Yu SH, Hur YH, Hwang EC, et al. Does multidetector computed tomographic urography (MDCTU) T staging classification correspond with pathologic T staging in upper tract urothelial carcinoma?. Int Urol Nephrol. 53(1):69-75, 2021 Jan.
120.	Li X, Li S, Chi Z, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics, prognosis, and chemosensitivity in patients with metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma. UROL. ONCOL.. 39(1):75.e1-75.e8, 2021 01.
121.	Voskuilen CS, Schweitzer D, Jensen JB, et al. Diagnostic Value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with Computed Tomography for Lymph Node Staging in Patients with Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. European Urology Oncology. 3(1):73-79, 2020 02.Eur Urol Oncol. 3(1):73-79, 2020 02.
122.	Kobayashi M, Tanaka H, Tateishi U, et al. Impact of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography/computed tomography on chemosensitivity and survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Int J Urol. 26(8):820-826, 2019 08.
123.	Tanaka H, Yoshida S, Komai Y, et al. Clinical Value of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Impact on Detection of Metastases and Patient Management. Urol Int. 96(1):65-72, 2016.
124.	Takahashi N, Glockner JF, Hartman RP, et al. Gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance urography for upper urinary tract malignancy. J Urol. 183(4):1330-65, 2010 Apr.
125.	Obuchi M, Ishigami K, Takahashi K, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced fat-suppressed T1-weighted imaging for staging ureteral carcinoma: correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 188(3):W256-61, 2007 Mar.
126.	Akita H, Jinzaki M, Kikuchi E, et al. Preoperative T categorization and prediction of histopathologic grading of urothelial carcinoma in renal pelvis using diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 197(5):1130-6, 2011 Nov.
127.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.