Urine Markers for Bladder Cancer Surveillance: A Systematic Review

Rhijn, Bas W.G. van; Poel, Henk G. van der; Kwast, Theodorus H. van der

doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.014

Cited by 465 publications

(330 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

300

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…FISH has been shown to be 79% sensitive and 70% specific for diagnosing urothelial cancer. [20] A review article published in 2008 concluded that FISH is able to detect most concomitant bladder recurrences and predict recurrent disease. [33] More similar studies have assessed the value of FISH for bladder tumor surveillance.…”

Section: Main Body Molecular Markers As a Diagnostic Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What are the currently available and in development molecular markers for bladder cancer? Will they prove to be useful in the future?

Abdulmajed

Sancak

Reşorlu

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urothelial carcinoma is the 9 th most common cancer worldwide. Most urothelial tumors are non-muscle invasive on presentation. However, two-thirds of non-invasive bladder cancers will eventually recur with a 25% risk of progression to muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Tumor stage, histological grade and pathological invasion of blood vessels and lymphatic tissue are the main indicators for urothelial cancer prognosis. The gold standard for diagnosing bladder cancer is conventional white-light cystoscopy and biopsy. Urine cytology is a highly specific, sensitive test for high-grade tumors or carcinoma in situ (CIS). Urinary NMP22 has an overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting bladder cancer of 49% and 87%, respectively. However, there are falsepositive results in the presence of urinary tract infection or hematuria. The detection of specific gene mutations related to urothelial cancers has been studied and employed to reproduce markers helpful for diagnosis. According to current studies, molecular markers can be used to predict tumor recurrence. From a prognostic point of view, new molecular markers have yet to be established as reliable indicators of tumor aggressiveness. We aimed to review the molecular markers with possible prognostic significance that have been discussed in the literature. This review examined the literature for various molecular markers under development for bladder cancer in an attempt to optimize patient care and reduce the costs of treating these patients.

show abstract

Section: Main Body Molecular Markers As a Diagnostic Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[19] Another relatively sensitive (75%) and specific (85%) test for detecting bladder cancer is the Lewis blood group antigen X, which is generally, but not always, missing from adult urothelial cells. [20,21] To date, no kit for this test is readily available.…”

Section: Main Body Molecular Markers As a Diagnostic Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the currently available and in development molecular markers for bladder cancer? Will they prove to be useful in the future?

Abdulmajed

Sancak

Reşorlu

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…96 The strength of urinary cytology is its high specificity of Ͼ90% for bladdercancer detection. 100,109 The disadvantages of urine cytology are its poor sensitivity of low-grade disease and its dependence on the level of expertise of the pathologist for interpretation. 96 Thus, a noninvasive, inexpensive, and highly sensitive and specific bladdercancer marker could decrease patient morbidity and cost associated with surveillance cystoscopy.…”

Section: Tumor Biology and Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One 2005 meta-analysis examining urine markers for surveillance showed that FISH had a median sensitivity of 79% and median specificity of 70%. 100 The main disadvantages of FISH are the lack of standardization of the criterion for a positive test, the low sensitivity of detecting low-grade tumors, its expense, and the need for specially trained laboratory personnel to perform the test. 96,101 Combined testing with other assays may improve the effectiveness of this biomarker.…”

Section: Tumor Biology and Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bladder Cancer in 2010: How Far have We Come?

Jacobs¹,

Lee

Montie

2010

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

300

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer and ranks eighth as a cause of death from cancer among men in the United States. Although guidelines assist in treatment, the art of managing bladder cancer, such as the decision to use neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the timing of cystectomy, is still variable. Bladder cancer has a propensity to recur, and with recurrence, a significant number of cases progress, which makes the early detection of high-risk patients imperative. Advances in detection, surveillance, and treatment of bladder cancer are reviewed in this article.

show abstract

“…Although these two markers are in clinical use, sensitivity and specificity of these markers are not perfect (van Rhijn et al, 2005); NMP-22 staining shows false-positivity reactions in patients with haematuria, and the BTA stat/BTA TRAK assay, which detects human complement factor H-related protein, shows false-positivity reactions in patients with urinary tract inflammation, recent genitourinary tumours and in cases of bladder stone (Dey, 2004). Cytology is still the most accurate diagnosis method, although sensitivity is not enough high (van Rhijn et al, 2005). Thus, discovery of a novel biomarker, which is sensitive and specific for bladder cancer, is an urgent subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

UHRF1 is a novel molecular marker for diagnosis and the prognosis of bladder cancer

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer is the second most common cancer of the urinary system. Early diagnosis of this tumour and estimation of risk of future progression after initial transuretherial resection have a significant impact on prognosis. Although there are several molecular markers for the diagnosis and prognosis for this tumour, their accuracy is not ideal. Previous reports have shown that UHRF1 (ubiquitin-like with PHD and ring-finger domains 1) is essential for cellular proliferation. In this study, we examined whether UHRF1 can be a novel molecular marker of bladder cancer. METHODS: We performed real-time TaqMan quantitative reverse transcription -PCR and immunohistochemistry to examine expression levels of UHRF1 in bladder and kidney cancers. RESULTS: Significant overexpression of UHRF1 was observed in bladder cancer. The overexpression was correlated with the stage and grade of the cancer. Although UHRF1 expression in muscle-invasive cancer was greater than in non-invasive (pTa) or superficially invasive (pT1) cancers, UHRF1 could still be detected by immunohistochemistry in these early-stage cancers. Overexpression of UHRF1 in bladder cancer was associated with increased risk of progression after transurethral resection. High expression of UHRF1 in kidney cancer was also observed. But the increased levels of UHRF1 in kidney cancer were less significant compared with those in bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: Our result indicates that an immunohistochemistry-based UHRF1 detection in urine sediment or surgical specimens can be a sensitive and cancer-specific diagnostic and/or prognosis method, and may greatly improve the current diagnosis based on cytology.

show abstract

Urine Markers for Bladder Cancer Surveillance: A Systematic Review

Cited by 465 publications

References 18 publications

What are the currently available and in development molecular markers for bladder cancer? Will they prove to be useful in the future?

What are the currently available and in development molecular markers for bladder cancer? Will they prove to be useful in the future?

Bladder Cancer in 2010: How Far have We Come?

UHRF1 is a novel molecular marker for diagnosis and the prognosis of bladder cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About