INTRODUCTION: Urinary biomarkers are being developed to detect bladder cancer recurrence/progression in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). We conducted a questionnaire-based study to determine what diagnostic accuracy and cost would such test(s) need for both patients and urologic oncologists to comfortably forgo surveillance cystoscopy in favour of these tests. METHODS: Surveys were administered to NMIBC patients at followup cystoscopy visit and to physician members of the Society of Urologic Oncology. Participants were questioned about acceptable false-negative (FN) rates and costs for such alternatives, in addition to demographics that could influence chosen error rates and costs. RESULTS: A total of 137 patient and 51 urologic oncologist responses were obtained. Seventy-seven percent of patients were not comfortable with urinary biomarker(s) alternatives to repeat cystoscopy, with a further 14% willing to accept such alternatives only if the FN rate were 0.5% or lower. Seventy-five percent of urologic oncologists were comfortable with an alternative urinary biomarker test(s), with 37% and 33% willing to accept FN rates of 5% and 1%, respectively. Forty-seven percent of patients were not willing to pay out-of-pocket for such tests, while 61% of urologic oncologists felt that a price range of $100-500 would be reasonable. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey evaluating patient and urologic oncologist perspectives on acceptable error rates and costs for urinary biomarker alternatives to surveillance cystoscopy for patients with NMIBC. Despite potential responder bias, this study suggests that urinary biomarker(s) will require sensitivity equivalent to that of cystoscopy in order to completely replace it in surveillance of patients with NMIBC.
INTRODUCTION: Urinary biomarkers are being developed to detect bladder cancer recurrence/progression in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). We conducted a questionnaire-based study to determine what diagnostic accuracy and cost would such test(s) need for both patients and urologic oncologists to comfortably forgo surveillance cystoscopy in favour of these tests. METHODS: Surveys were administered to NMIBC patients at followup cystoscopy visit and to physician members of the Society of Urologic Oncology. Participants were questioned about acceptable false-negative (FN) rates and costs for such alternatives, in addition to demographics that could influence chosen error rates and costs. RESULTS: A total of 137 patient and 51 urologic oncologist responses were obtained. Seventy-seven percent of patients were not comfortable with urinary biomarker(s) alternatives to repeat cystoscopy, with a further 14% willing to accept such alternatives only if the FN rate were 0.5% or lower. Seventy-five percent of urologic oncologists were comfortable with an alternative urinary biomarker test(s), with 37% and 33% willing to accept FN rates of 5% and 1%, respectively. Forty-seven percent of patients were not willing to pay out-of-pocket for such tests, while 61% of urologic oncologists felt that a price range of $100-500 would be reasonable. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey evaluating patient and urologic oncologist perspectives on acceptable error rates and costs for urinary biomarker alternatives to surveillance cystoscopy for patients with NMIBC. Despite potential responder bias, this study suggests that urinary biomarker(s) will require sensitivity equivalent to that of cystoscopy in order to completely replace it in surveillance of patients with NMIBC.
Authors: Martin Than; Mel Herbert; Dylan Flaws; Louise Cullen; Erik Hess; Judd E Hollander; Deborah Diercks; Michael W Ardagh; Jeffery A Kline; Zea Munro; Allan Jaffe Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Lillian J Hsieh; Farhang Rabbani; Peter B Bach; Harry Herr; Colin B Begg Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Madelon N M van der Aa; Ewout W Steyerberg; E Fatma Sen; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Wim J Kirkels; Theo H van der Kwast; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ryan M Reyes; Emily Rios; Shane Barney; Cory M Hugen; Joel E Michalek; Yair Lotan; Edward M Messing; Robert S Svatek Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2021
Authors: Henner Schreiber; Jörg Hänze; Wilhelm Nimphius; Frederik Anton Verburg; Markus Luster; Rainer Hofmann; Axel Hegele Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.553