PURPOSE: In marker lesion experiments a single bladder tumor is deliberately left unresected for later ablation by intravesical instillation of a novel agent. While the benefits are clear, eg the opportunity to examine the effect of therapy on measurable disease, the safety and medical ethics of these experiments are less obvious. We review the goals, inclusion criteria, definition of success, agents used, effectiveness, safety and ethics of marker lesion studies, and suggest a framework for future experiments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published bladder cancer studies using the marker lesion concept were identified with a MEDLINE search through March 2009. RESULTS: A total of 23 well documented marker lesion studies were identified involving more than 1,200 patients. Most agents studied were cytotoxins (mitomycin-C, epirubicin, gemcitabine, valrubicin, apaziquone) or immune response modifiers (bacillus Calmette-Guerin, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-alpha, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor). The highest complete response rate in intermediate risk patients (67%) was attained with apaziquone. Patients who achieved a complete response with this agent also had a prophylactic benefit with a 2-year recurrence-free rate of 45.2% compared to 26.7% in those who did not achieve a complete response. The complete response rate in bacillus Calmette-Guerin trials ranged from 32% to 61%. Marker lesion experiments were deemed safe with progression to T2 disease in only 7 patients (0.6%) and only when high risk patients were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Marker lesion studies are most appropriate for the evaluation of novel anticancer therapeutics. Only patients with multiple recurrent, noninvasive, low grade tumors (intermediate risk) should be recruited. Primary end points should be complete response and recurrence rates after 2 to 3 years. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: In marker lesion experiments a single bladder tumor is deliberately left unresected for later ablation by intravesical instillation of a novel agent. While the benefits are clear, eg the opportunity to examine the effect of therapy on measurable disease, the safety and medical ethics of these experiments are less obvious. We review the goals, inclusion criteria, definition of success, agents used, effectiveness, safety and ethics of marker lesion studies, and suggest a framework for future experiments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published bladder cancer studies using the marker lesion concept were identified with a MEDLINE search through March 2009. RESULTS: A total of 23 well documented marker lesion studies were identified involving more than 1,200 patients. Most agents studied were cytotoxins (mitomycin-C, epirubicin, gemcitabine, valrubicin, apaziquone) or immune response modifiers (bacillus Calmette-Guerin, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-alpha, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor). The highest complete response rate in intermediate risk patients (67%) was attained with apaziquone. Patients who achieved a complete response with this agent also had a prophylactic benefit with a 2-year recurrence-free rate of 45.2% compared to 26.7% in those who did not achieve a complete response. The complete response rate in bacillus Calmette-Guerin trials ranged from 32% to 61%. Marker lesion experiments were deemed safe with progression to T2 disease in only 7 patients (0.6%) and only when high risk patients were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Marker lesion studies are most appropriate for the evaluation of novel anticancer therapeutics. Only patients with multiple recurrent, noninvasive, low grade tumors (intermediate risk) should be recruited. Primary end points should be complete response and recurrence rates after 2 to 3 years. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Armen Aprikian; Peter Black; Girish Kulkarni; Jonathan Izawa; Libni Eapen; Adrian Fairey; Alan So; Scott North; Ricardo Rendon; Srikala S Sridhar; Tarik Alam; Fadi Brimo; Normand Blais; Chris Booth; Joseph Chin; Peter Chung; Darrel Drachenberg; Yves Fradet; Michael Jewett; Ron Moore; Chris Morash; Bobby Shayegan; Geoffrey Gotto; Neil Fleshner; Fred Saad; D Robert Siemens Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: A Hugh Mostafid; Nuria Porta; Joanne Cresswell; Thomas R L Griffiths; John D Kelly; Steven R Penegar; Kim Davenport; John S McGrath; Nicholas Campain; Peter Cooke; Shikohe Masood; Margaret A Knowles; Andrew Feber; Allen Knight; James W F Catto; Rebecca Lewis; Emma Hall Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alexander M Aliper; Victoria P Frieden-Korovkina; Anton Buzdin; Sergey A Roumiantsev; Alex Zhavoronkov Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Seth P Lerner; Dean F Bajorin; Colin P Dinney; Jason A Efstathiou; Susan Groshen; Noah M Hahn; Donna Hansel; David Kwiatkowski; Michael O'Donnell; Jonathan Rosenberg; Robert Svatek; Jeffrey S Abrams; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Andrea B Apolo; Joaquim Bellmunt; Margaret Callahan; Eugene K Cha; Charles Drake; Jonathan Jarow; Ashish Kamat; William Kim; Margaret Knowles; Bhupinder Mann; Luigi Marchionni; David McConkey; Lisa McShane; Nilsa Ramirez; Andrew Sharabi; Arlene H Sharpe; David Solit; Catherine M Tangen; Abdul Tawab Amiri; Eliezer Van Allen; Pamela J West; J A Witjes; Diane Zipursky Quale Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2016-04-27
Authors: Remco J Molenaar; Jons W van Hattum; Iris S Brummelhuis; Jorg R Oddens; C Dilara Savci-Heijink; Egbert R Boevé; Saskia A van der Meer; J Fred Witjes; Michael N Pollak; Theo M de Reijke; Johanna W Wilmink Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.430