Marc Sbizzera1,2, Françoise Descotes3, Théo Arber4,5, Paul Neuville4,5, Alain Ruffion4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier de Lyon Sud, 165 Chemin du Grand Revoyet, Pierre-Bénite, 69310, Lyon, France. marc.sbizzera01@chu-lyon.fr. 2. Equipe 2 - Centre d'Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (EA 3738 CICLY) - Faculté de médecine Lyon Sud, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France. marc.sbizzera01@chu-lyon.fr. 3. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier de Lyon Sud, 165 Chemin du Grand Revoyet, Pierre-Bénite, 69310, Lyon, France. 4. Department of Urology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier de Lyon Sud, 165 Chemin du Grand Revoyet, Pierre-Bénite, 69310, Lyon, France. 5. Equipe 2 - Centre d'Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (EA 3738 CICLY) - Faculté de médecine Lyon Sud, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize the current state of knowledge on bladder cancer diagnosis and screening in neurogenic bladder patients, and to explore the potential contribution of biomarkers in this context. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to retrieve cystoscopy and urinary cytology performance for bladder cancer detection in neurogenic bladder patients. We also retrieved information of certified urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer detection and their potential application for this specific population. RESULTS: A total of 1092 articles were identified; 19 of them were included in the scoping review regarding cytology and cystoscopy performance in patients with neurogenic bladder and 33 were included as related to biomarkers in bladder cancer. No significant study stood out to recommend bladder cancer screening in this specific population using cytology and cystoscopy because of the scarcity of results, low level-of-evidence studies, and lack of studies specifically designed to assess the test performance in this population. Two biomarkers were retained as potential future diagnostic tools: FISH analysis to detect chromosomal changes, and PCR for TERT and FGFR3 promoter mutation detection, associated or not with KRAS mutation detection. CONCLUSION: There is no sufficient quality data to support cystoscopy and urinary cytology as effective tools for the diagnostic and surveillance of bladder cancer in neurogenic bladder patients. FISH analysis to detect chromosomal changes, and PCR for TERT and FGFR3 promoter mutation detection, associated or not with KRAS mutation detection, stand out as candidates of interest for bladder cancer detection in this specific population and should be prospectively tested.
PURPOSE: To summarize the current state of knowledge on bladder cancer diagnosis and screening in neurogenic bladder patients, and to explore the potential contribution of biomarkers in this context. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to retrieve cystoscopy and urinary cytology performance for bladder cancer detection in neurogenic bladder patients. We also retrieved information of certified urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer detection and their potential application for this specific population. RESULTS: A total of 1092 articles were identified; 19 of them were included in the scoping review regarding cytology and cystoscopy performance in patients with neurogenic bladder and 33 were included as related to biomarkers in bladder cancer. No significant study stood out to recommend bladder cancer screening in this specific population using cytology and cystoscopy because of the scarcity of results, low level-of-evidence studies, and lack of studies specifically designed to assess the test performance in this population. Two biomarkers were retained as potential future diagnostic tools: FISH analysis to detect chromosomal changes, and PCR for TERT and FGFR3 promoter mutation detection, associated or not with KRAS mutation detection. CONCLUSION: There is no sufficient quality data to support cystoscopy and urinary cytology as effective tools for the diagnostic and surveillance of bladder cancer in neurogenic bladder patients. FISH analysis to detect chromosomal changes, and PCR for TERT and FGFR3 promoter mutation detection, associated or not with KRAS mutation detection, stand out as candidates of interest for bladder cancer detection in this specific population and should be prospectively tested.
Authors: P Ali; C Lefevre; B Perrouin-Verbe; L Le Normand; J Rigaud; O Bouchot; A Levesque; M-A Perrouin-Verbe Journal: Prog Urol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 0.915
Authors: Jérôme Parra; Sarah Drouin; Eva Comperat; Vincent Misraï; Emmanuel Van Glabeke; François Richard; Pierre Denys; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Prog Urol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 0.915