Joan Palou1, Maurizio Brausi2, James W F Catto3. 1. Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: jpalou@fundacio-puigvert.es. 2. University of Modena, Modena, Italy. 3. Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
This presentation considers follow-up after successful transurethral resection of a high-grade non-muscle-invasive tumour, with normal cystoscopy, followed by bacillus-Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy. Focusing on two possible outcomes, a positive cytology but a negative urinary biomarker result, versus positive biomarkers but a negative cytology, we discuss what the evidence and guidelines recommend and which test is more robust. PATIENT SUMMARY: Bladder cancer is usually assessed by examination of tissue taken from the bladder, either by surgery or by biopsy; however, trace elements in the urine, known as biomarkers, can also provide an assessment. The challenge arises when the two methods do not agree: the tissue sample is positive for cancer, but the biomarker is negative, or the reverse. For now, these authors conclude that the tissue examination is more reliable than the biomarker result.
This presentation considers follow-up after successful transurethral resection of a high-grade non-muscle-invasive tumour, with normal cystoscopy, followed by bacillus-Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy. Focusing on two possible outcomes, a positive cytology but a negative urinary biomarker result, versus positive biomarkers but a negative cytology, we discuss what the evidence and guidelines recommend and which test is more robust. PATIENT SUMMARY: Bladder cancer is usually assessed by examination of tissue taken from the bladder, either by surgery or by biopsy; however, trace elements in the urine, known as biomarkers, can also provide an assessment. The challenge arises when the two methods do not agree: the tissue sample is positive for cancer, but the biomarker is negative, or the reverse. For now, these authors conclude that the tissue examination is more reliable than the biomarker result.
Authors: Edyta Marta Borkowska; Tomasz Konecki; Michał Pietrusiński; Maciej Borowiec; Zbigniew Jabłonowski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Rafaela Malinaric; Guglielmo Mantica; Lorenzo Lo Monaco; Federico Mariano; Rosario Leonardi; Alchiede Simonato; André Van der Merwe; Carlo Terrone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Paulo Gontero; Emanuele Montanari; Morgan Roupret; Fabrizio Longo; Jacqueline Stockley; Ashleigh Kennedy; Oscar Rodriguez; Stuart R C McCracken; Tim Dudderidge; Caroline Sieverink; Felicien Vanié; Marco Allasia; J Alfred Witjes; Richard Sylvester; Marc Colombel; Juan Palou Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 5.588