STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies

Item No / Recommendation
Title and abstract / 1 / (a) retrospective observational analysis
(b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found- Done.
Introduction
Background/rationale / 2 / Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported
Done- Randomized trials have shown that photodynamic diagnosis (PDD)-guided transurethral bladder tumor resection (TUR-BT) improves the detection of carcinoma in situ (CIS) and reduces the risk of intravesical recurrence. Whether PDD-guided transurethral management of patients with invasive bladder cancer may have an impact on the oncologic outcome after RC has not been investigated thus far.
Objectives / 3 / State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses
Done-To analyze the impact of PDD-guided TUR-BT on survival in patients who were treated with RC for BC
Methods
Study design / 4 / Present key elements of study design early in the paper
Done-Retrospective design
Setting / 5 / Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection
Done-Setting: Single-center series
Location: Dept. of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany
Period of recruitment: 2002-2010
HAL-TUR-BT: 2006-2010
ALA-TUR-BT: 2002-2006
WL-TUR-BT: 2002-2010
Follow-up:
Obligatory: cross-sectional imaging in all patients (CT or MRI)
Optional: physical examination, laboratory testing, intravenous pyelography, cystoscopy, urine cytology, urethral washings, and bone scintigraphy
Data collection: via electronic hospital charts and physician records
Participants / 6 / (a) Cohort study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up
Done-
Eligibity criteria:
-Patients undergoing radical cystectomy with curative intent for BC
-No neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
- Methods of follow-up: see No. 5
Variables / 7 / Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable
Done-
Outcomes: recurrece-free survival, cancer-specific survival, overall survival
Exposures:HAL vs. ALA vs. WL-guided TUR-BT
Predictors and effect modifiers: number of HAL- vs. ALA- vs. WL-TUR-BT procedures before RC, age at RC, gender, pathologic tumor stage, pathologic nodal stage, primary MIBC vs. NMIBC, lymphovascular invasion, soft-tissue surgical margins (STSMs), tumor grade, prior BCG therapy, hydronephrosis at RC, non-pure urothelial carcinoma (UC) pathology, median interval between last TUR-BT and RC, median interval between first TUR-BT (confirming BC) and RC, number of TUR-BTs before RC, and tumor multifocality, externally vs. internally vs. externally/internally performed TUR-BT
Potential confounders: criteria for patient selection according to in-house policy for use of PDD
Data sources/ measurement / 8* / For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group
Done-
Source of data: pathologic and clinical records
Bias / 9 / Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias
Done-
Please see subgroup analysis outlined in figures and tables
Study size / 10 / Explain how the study size was arrived at
Done-
Consecutive selection of all patients treated with radical cystectomy via Tübingen Cystectomy Database (approved by the Local Ethics Committee Tübingen, No. 417/2010A (N=278). Number of patients investigated in unvariable analysis: 224 patients. Exclusion of 14 patients with unknown pN (pNX=14) stage. 10 patients lost to follow-up
Quantitative variables / 11 / Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses.
Done-
Handling of variable of interest PDD as a dichotomous variable: First we tested whether patients undergoing at least one PDD-guided TUR-BT exhibited different survival compared to patients treated with WL (standard treatment). Second we tested this differences was attributtable to the use of hexaminolaevulinate vs. 5-aminolaevulinate. Additionally we tested whether the number of PDD-guided procedures had an impact on survival.
Statistical methods / 12 / (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding
Done-
Univariable and multivariable Cox-regression analysis.
(b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions
Done-
Subgroup analysis were conducted with Chi-quare/Fisher Exact test for differences between the three subgroups (ALA vs. HAL vs. WL). Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of PDD on survival in subgroups (BCG pretreatment, advanced tumor stage, number of resections). WL-patients categorized according to whether TUR-BT was performed in external vs. internal vs. internal and external departments
(c) Explain how missing data were addressed
Done-
Patients with missing data were excluded from analysis.
(d) Cohort study—If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed:
Done-
10 patients were lost to follow-up. Final cohort of 224 patients

Continued on next page

Results
Participants / 13* / (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study—eg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed
Done
(b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage- Done
(c) Consider use of a flow diagram- Not applicable
Descriptive data / 14* / (a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders- Done.
(b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest- Done
(c) Cohort study—Summarise follow-up time (eg, average and total amount). Done
Outcome data / 15* / Cohort study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time- Done
Case-control study—Report numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure Not applicable
Cross-sectional study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures Not applicable
Main results / 16 / (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included. Done
(b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized. Done
(c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period. Done
Other analyses / 17 / Report other analyses done—eg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses. Done
Discussion
Key results / 18 / Summarise key results with reference to study objectives. Done
Limitations / 19 / Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias. Done
Interpretation / 20 / Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence. Done
Generalisability / 21 / Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results. Done
Other information
Funding / 22 / Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based. No funding

*Give information separately for cases and controls in case-control studies and, if applicable, for exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Note: An Explanation and Elaboration article discusses each checklist item and gives methodological background and published examples of transparent reporting. The STROBE checklist is best used in conjunction with this article (freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine at http://www.plosmedicine.org/, Annals of Internal Medicine at http://www.annals.org/, and Epidemiology at http://www.epidem.com/). Information on the STROBE Initiative is available at www.strobe-statement.org.

1