| Literature DB >> 31941070 |
Rui Batista1,2,3,4, Nuno Vinagre1,2,4,5, Sara Meireles1,2,4,6, João Vinagre1,2,3,4, Hugo Prazeres1,2,3,7, Ricardo Leão8,9,10, Valdemar Máximo1,2,4,5, Paula Soares1,2,4,5.
Abstract
Bladder cancer (BC) ranks as the sixth most prevalent cancer in the world, with a steady rise in its incidence and prevalence, and is accompanied by a high morbidity and mortality. BC is a complex disease with several molecular and pathological pathways, thus reflecting different behaviors depending on the clinical staging of the tumor and molecular type. Diagnosis and monitoring of BC is mainly performed by invasive tests, namely periodic cystoscopies; this procedure, although a reliable method, is highly uncomfortable for the patient and it is not exempt of comorbidities. Currently, there is no formal indication for the use of molecular biomarkers in clinical practice, even though there are several tests available. There is an imperative need for a clinical non-invasive testing for early detection, disease monitoring, and treatment response in BC. In this review, we aim to assess and compare different tests based on molecular biomarkers and evaluate their potential role as new molecules for bladder cancer diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment response monitoring.Entities:
Keywords: TERT promoter mutation; biomarker; bladder cancer; blood test; non-invasive test; urinary test
Year: 2020 PMID: 31941070 PMCID: PMC7169395 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10010039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Molecular and histological progression of bladder cancer (BC). Bladder cancer is pathologically characterized by two distinct subtypes—non-muscle invasive carcinoma (NMIBC) and muscle invasive carcinoma (MIBC)—depending on whether it does not or does invade the bladder muscle layer, respectively.
Available commercial kits performance and characteristics.
| Name (Commercially Available Kits/Procedures) | FDA Approval/CE Mark | Present in EAU Guidelines 2019 | Sample | Starting Material | Technology | Type of biomarker assessed | Purpose | Overall Performance | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Christopher G.T. Blick, et al. 2011 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| He, H. et al. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mowatt, G. et al. 2010 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zhang, Z. et al. 2017 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hajdinjak, T. et al. 2008 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Glas, A.S. et al. 2003 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| O’Sullivan, P. et al. 2012 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Valenberg FJP, V. et al. 2017 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Batista, R. et al. 2019 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Witjes, A. et al. 2018 [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Springer, S.U. et al. 2018 [ |
*1 Information not available; *2 EAU guidelines refer the use of TERT/FGFR3 testing that composes Uromonitor test.
Figure 2Non-invasive targets and starting material.