Tailoring LUTS Assessment in Women: Unveiling the Best Tools for Obstructive and Storage Symptom

Sanchez Ballester F1, Gras R2, Pardo P2, Diranzo M2, Mitjana S2, Díaz I2, Cuevas P3, Martinez F2, Aparisi S2, Falla M2, Quilis S2, Cervera M2, Duran A2, López E2

Research Type

Clinical

Abstract Category

Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) / Voiding Dysfunction

Abstract 755
Open Discussion ePosters
Scientific Open Discussion Session 109
Saturday 20th September 2025
15:40 - 15:45 (ePoster Station 4)
Exhibition
Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction Questionnaire Voiding Dysfunction Urodynamics Techniques
1. University General Hospital of Valencia, 2. University General Hospital of Valencia, 3. Advanced Incontinence Institute of Valencia
Presenter
Links

Abstract

Hypothesis / aims of study
Accurate evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in women is crucial for proper diagnosis and management. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Bladder Quality of Life Self-Assessment Questionnaire (CACV) in assessing obstructive and storage symptoms. Additionally, optimal cutoff points for uroflowmetry (Qmax) and detrusor pressure at maximum flow (PdetMax) were determined to identify women with obstructive urinary syndrome.
Study design, materials and methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted on adult women with LUTS. The IPSS and CACV questionnaires were administered, and complete urodynamic studies were performed. ROC curves were used to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of both questionnaires in evaluating obstructive and storage symptoms. Optimal cutoff points for Qmax and PdetMax were also identified using ROC analysis.
Results
The analysis showed that the CACV outperformed the IPSS in assessing obstructive symptoms (sensitivity 85%, specificity 79%, AUC 0.89 vs. 0.78; p<0.05). Conversely, the IPSS demonstrated better performance in evaluating storage symptoms (sensitivity 80%, specificity 75%, AUC 0.82 vs. 0.77; p<0.05).

The following clinically useful cutoff points were identified:

Parameter	                  Cutoff Point	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Qmax (ml/s)	                        ≤ 12	                84	                      76
PdetMax (cmH₂O)	        ≥ 25	                82	                      80
Interpretation of results
Our findings revealed distinct strengths for each questionnaire. The CACV demonstrated superior accuracy in identifying obstructive symptoms, such as weak urinary flow or difficulty initiating urination, with an excellent AUC of 0.89. On the other hand, the IPSS proved more effective in evaluating storage symptoms, such as urinary urgency and increased frequency, with a good AUC of 0.82. These results highlight the importance of tailoring diagnostic approaches to the predominant symptom type, ensuring a more precise and personalized assessment.

Moreover, the identification of clinically relevant cutoff points for Qmax (≤12 ml/s) and PdetMax (≥25 cmH₂O) offers practical tools for the early detection of obstructive urinary syndromes in women. These thresholds provide a clear framework for guiding urodynamic evaluations and distinguishing between obstructive and non-obstructive causes of LUTS, further enhancing diagnostic accuracy.
Concluding message
The comparative analysis underscores the complementary roles of the CACV and IPSS in LUTS assessment. While the CACV excels in diagnosing obstructive symptoms, the IPSS is better suited for storage-related issues. By integrating these tools into clinical practice alongside the established urodynamic cutoff points, healthcare providers can achieve a more targeted and effective evaluation of LUTS in women, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life.
Disclosures
Funding non Clinical Trial No Subjects Human Ethics not Req'd usual clinical practice Helsinki Yes Informed Consent Yes
23/07/2025 09:23:49