Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Considerations on the use of diagnostic markers in management of patients with bladder cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the incidence of bladder cancer lags behind that of other malignancies, it has the highest rate of recurrence among all US malignancies. The propensity to recur and the possibility of disease progression require aggressive surveillance, which has led to bladder cancer being the most expensive malignancy to treat in the United States. Current non-tailored surveillance strategies applied uniformly to all patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer may impose excessive diagnostic burden on patients with low-grade disease for the sake of adequately monitoring those with potentially aggressive disease. The recent identification of several bladder cancer tumor markers has led to attempts to determine if these markers can enhance existing surveillance strategies by possibly tailoring surveillance strategies to individual patients. These markers may result in cost savings by properly identifying which patients can safely delay cystoscopy and which patients require more periodic assessment. Furthermore, we may be able to identify those patients with “occult disease” that require more invasive assessments and earlier aggressive treatment. We will review diagnostic considerations in the use of these markers for the detection of recurrent bladder cancer and summarize the benefits and costs of the more promising bladder cancer markers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liou LS (2006) Urothelial cancer biomarkers for detection and surveillance. Urology 67:25–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Riley GF, Potosky AL, Lubitz JD et al (1995) Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care 33:828–841

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Heney NM, Ahmed S, Flanagan MJ et al (1993) Superficial bladder cancer: progression and recurrence. J Urol 130:1083–1086

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lee CT, Madii R, Daignault S et al (2006) Cystectomy delay more than 3 months from initial bladder cancer diagnosis results in decreased disease specific and overall survival. J Urol 175:1262–1267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Young MJ, Soloway MS (1998) Office evaluation and management of bladder neoplasms. Urol Clin North Am 25:603–611

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gofrit ON, Pode D, Lazar A et al (2006) Watchful waiting policy in recurrent Ta G1 bladder tumors. Eur Urol 49:303–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schrag D, Hsieh LJ, Rabbani F et al (2003) Adherence to surveillance among patients with superficial bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:588–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark KR, Higgs MJ (1990) Urinary infection following out-patient flexible cystoscopy. Br J Urol 66:503–505

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Grossman HB, Soloway M, Messing E et al (2006) Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 295:299–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Botteman MF, Pashos CL, Redaeli A et al (2003) The health economics of bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the published literature. Pharmacoeconomics 21:1315–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hedelin H, Holmang S, Wiman L (2002) The cost of bladder tumour treatment and follow-up. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36:344–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG (2002) Cost-effectiveness of a modified care protocol substituting bladder tumor markers for cystoscopy for the followup of patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a decision analytical approach. J Urol 167:75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nam RK, Redelmeier DA, Spiess PE et al (2000) Comparison of molecular and conventional strategies for followup of superficial bladder cancer using decision analysis. J Urol 163:752–757

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vriesema JL, Poucki MH, Kiemeney LA et al (2000) Patient opinion of urinary tests versus flexible urethrocystoscopy in follow-up examination for superficial bladder cancer: a utility analysis. Urology 56:793–797

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lokeshwar VB, Habuchi T, Grossman HB et al (2005) Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 66:35–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH (2005) Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 47:736–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Miyanaga N, Akaza H, Tsukamoto S et al (2003) Usefulness of urinary NMP22 to detect tumor recurrence of superficial bladder cancer after transurethral resection. Int J Clin Oncol 8:369–373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Boman H, Hedelin H, Holmang S (2002) Four bladder tumor markers have a disappointingly low sensitivity for small size and low grade recurrence. J Urol 167:80–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Konety BR (2006) Molecular markers in bladder cancer: a critical appraisal. Urol Oncol 24:326–337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma S, Zippe CD, Pandrangi L et al (1999) Exclusion criteria enhance the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22 and BTA stat. J Urol 162:53–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pode D, Shapiro A, Wald M et al (1999) Noninvasive detection of bladder cancer with the BTA stat test. J Urol 161:443–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Witjes JA, van der Poel HG, van Balken MR et al (1998) Urinary NMP22 and karyometry in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with superficial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 33:387–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mian C, Lodde M, Comploj E et al (2005) The value of the ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ test in the detection and follow-up of carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder. Anticancer Res 25:3641–3644

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Messing EM, Teot L, Korman H et al (2005) Performance of urine test in patients monitored for recurrence of bladder cancer: a multicenter study in the United States. J Urol 174:1238–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vriesema JL, Atsma F, Kiemeney LA, Peelen WP, Witjes JA, Schalken JA (2001) Diagnostic efficacy of the ImmunoCyt test to detect superficial bladder cancer recurrence. Urology 58:367–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mian C, Maier K, Comploj E et al (2006) uCyt+/ImmunoCyt in the detection of recurrent urothelial carcinoma: an update on 1991 analyses. Cancer Cytopathol 108:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lodde M, Mian C, Comploj E et al (2006) uCyt+ test: alternative to cystoscopy for less-invasive follow-up of patients with low risk of urothelial carcinoma. Urology 67:950–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lokeshwar VB, Selzer MG (2006) Urinary bladder tumor markers. Urol Oncol 24:528–537

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Skacel M, Fahmy M, Brainard JA et al (2003) Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol 169:2101–2105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bollmann M, Heller H, Bankfalvi A et al (2005) Quantitative molecular urinary cytology by fluorescence in situ hybridization: a tool for tailoring surveillance of patients with superficial bladder cancer? BJU Int 95:1219–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kipp BR, Karnes RJ, Brankley SM et al (2005) Monitoring intravesical therapy for superficial bladder cancer using fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Urol 173:401–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Black PC, Brown GA, Dinney CP (2006) Molecular markers of urothelial cancer and their use in the monitoring of superficial urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5528–5535

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Steiner G, Schoenberg MP, Linn JF et al (1997) Detection of bladder cancer recurrence by microsatellite analysis of urine. Nat Med 3:621–624

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bartoletti R, Dal Canto M, Cai T et al (2005) Early diagnosis and monitoring of superficial transitional cell carcinoma by microsatellite analysis on urine sediment. Oncol Rep 13:531–537

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Unit 1373, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Piyush K. Agarwal, Peter C. Black & Ashish M. Kamat

Authors
  1. Piyush K. Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter C. Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashish M. Kamat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashish M. Kamat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Agarwal, P.K., Black, P.C. & Kamat, A.M. Considerations on the use of diagnostic markers in management of patients with bladder cancer. World J Urol 26, 39–44 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0232-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0232-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation