Search

Item does not contain fulltext, RATIONALE: Assessment of patients with asymptomatic microhematuria (aMh) has been a challenge to urologists for decades. The aMh is a condition with a high prevalence in the general population and also an established diagnostic indicator of bladder cancer. Acknowledging aMh needs to be assessed within a complex context, multiple guidelines have been developed to identify individuals at high risk of being diagnosed with bladder cancer. MATERIAL & METHODS: This structured review and consensus of the International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) identified and examined 9 major guidelines. These recommendations are partly based on findings from a long-term study on the effects of home dipstick testing, but also on the assumption that early detection of malignancy might be beneficial. RESULTS: Despite similar designs, these guidelines differ in a variety of parameters including definition of aMh, rating of risks, use of imaging modalities, and the role of urine cytology. In addition, recommendations for further follow-up after negative initial assessment are controversial. In this review, different aspects for aMh assessment are analyzed based upon the evidence currently available. DISCUSSION: We question whether adherence to the complicated algorithms as recommended by most guidelines is practical for routine use. Based upon a consensus, the authors postulate a need for better tools. New concepts for risk assessment permitting improved risk stratification and prepone cystoscopy before refined imaging procedures (computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging) are suggested.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) comprises a wide spectrum of tumors with different behaviors and prognoses. It follows that the surveillance for these tumors should be adapted according to the risks of recurrence and progression and should be dynamic in design. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medline search was conducted from 1980 to 2016 using a combination of MeSH and keyword terms. The highest available evidence was reviewed to define different risk groups in NMIBC. The performance of different follow-up tools such as urine cytology, cystoscopy, and upper tract imaging in detecting bladder carcinoma was assessed. Different commercially available urinary markers were investigated to determine whether such markers would contribute to the surveillance of patients with NMIBC. A follow-up scheme based on the early evidence is proposed. Results : A risk-based approach is paramount. Cystoscopy and cytology are recommended to be done at 3 months following transurethral resection of bladder tumor. For low-risk tumors, annual cystoscopy alone is sufficient; no upper tract evaluations or cytology is needed except at diagnosis. High-risk tumors should be followed up with a more intense schedule: cystoscopy every 3 months for 2 years, 6 months for 2 years, and then annually, with cytology at frequent intervals, and imaging for upper tract evaluation at 1 year and then every 2 years. Intermediate-risk tumors should be subclassified as per the International Bladder Cancer Group recommendations and when associated with 3 or more of the following findings (multiple tumors, size>/=3cm, early recurrence<1 year, frequent recurrences>1 per year) then a surveillance strategy similar to that of high risk should be followed. Several urine markers were more sensitive than cytology in the detection of NMIBC; however, these tests are still costly, require specialized laboratories, and do not replace cystoscopy. Until better and cheaper markers are available, their routine use

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarifi

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current status of clinicopathological and molecular markers for the prediction of recurrence or progression or both in non-muscle-invasive and survival in muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, to address the reproducibility of pathology and molecular markers, and to provide directions toward implementation of molecular markers in future clinical decision making. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Immunohistochemistry, gene signatures, and FGFR3-based molecular grading were used as molecular examples focussing on prognostics and issues related to robustness of pathological and molecular assays. RESULTS: The role of molecular markers to predict recurrence is limited, as clinical variables are currently more important. The prediction of progression and survival using molecular markers holds considerable promise. Despite a plethora of prognostic (clinical and molecular) marker studies, reproducibility of pathology and molecular assays has been understudied, and lack of reproducibility is probably the main reason that individual prediction of disease outcome is currently not reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular markers are promising to predict progression and survival, but not recurrence. However, none of these are used in the daily clinical routine because of reproducibility issues. Future studies should focus on reproducibility of marker assessment and consistency of study results by incorporating scoring systems to reduce heterogeneity of reporting. This may ultimately lead to incorporation of molecular markers in clinical practice.