Olaf P J Vrooman1, J Alfred Witjes. 1. Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many markers for the detection of bladder cancers have been tested. Almost all urinary markers reported are better than cytology with regard to sensitivity, but they score lower in specificity. The purpose of this review is to highlight the most important urinary biomarkers studied and reported recently. METHODS: Literature on bladder cancer markers has been reviewed regularly in the last few years. In the current review we have tried to summarise the most recent literature of urinary markers. RESULTS: The results of this review show that the first-generation urinary markers did not add much to urinary cytology. The current generation of markers is promising but larger clinical trails are needed. The future of marker development is bright with new techniques emerging, but the perfect marker is still to be found. CONCLUSION: Currently, no single marker can yet guide us in surveillance and lower the frequency of urethrocystoscopy.
OBJECTIVES: Many markers for the detection of bladder cancers have been tested. Almost all urinary markers reported are better than cytology with regard to sensitivity, but they score lower in specificity. The purpose of this review is to highlight the most important urinary biomarkers studied and reported recently. METHODS: Literature on bladder cancer markers has been reviewed regularly in the last few years. In the current review we have tried to summarise the most recent literature of urinary markers. RESULTS: The results of this review show that the first-generation urinary markers did not add much to urinary cytology. The current generation of markers is promising but larger clinical trails are needed. The future of marker development is bright with new techniques emerging, but the perfect marker is still to be found. CONCLUSION: Currently, no single marker can yet guide us in surveillance and lower the frequency of urethrocystoscopy.
Authors: Mandy L Y Sin; Kathleen E Mach; Rahul Sinha; Fan Wu; Dharati R Trivedi; Emanuela Altobelli; Kristin C Jensen; Debashis Sahoo; Ying Lu; Joseph C Liao Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Zhi-qiang Wang; Jun Zhao; Jin Zeng; Kai-jie Wu; Yu-le Chen; Xin-yang Wang; Luke S Chang; Da-lin He Journal: Acta Pharmacol Sin Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 6.150