Bernd J. Schmitz-Dräger

Epidemiology of urinary bladder cancer: from tumor development to patient's death.

Urinary bladder cancer (UBC) ranks ninth in worldwide cancer incidence. It is more frequent in men than in women. We review the main established/proposed factors, both environmental and genetic, associated with bladder cancer etiology and prognosis. Data were extracted from previous reviews and original articles identified from PubMed searches, reference lists, and book chapters dealing with the reviewed topics. Evaluation and consensus of both the contribution of each factor in bladder cancer burden and the appropriateness of the available evidences was done during an ad hoc meeting held during the 18th Congress of the European Society for Urological Research. Cigarette smoking and specific occupational exposures are the main known causes of UBC. Phenacetin, chlornaphazine and cyclophosphamide also increase the risk of bladder cancer. Chronic infection by Schistosoma haematobium is a cause of squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder. NAT2 slow acetylator and GSTM1 null genotypes are associated with an increased risk of this cancer. Vegetables and fresh fruits protect against this tumor. Regarding prognosis, there is little knowledge on the predictive role of environmental exposures and genetic polymorphisms on tumor recurrence and progression and patient’s death. Although active tobacco smoking is the most commonly studied factor, no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the literature. More research is needed regarding the effect of complex etiological factors in bladder carcinogenesis. Subgroup analysis according to stage, grade, and molecular features may help in identifying specific etiological and prognostic factors involved in different bladder cancer progression pathways.

Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men and the worldwide burden of this disease is rising. Lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight control offer opportunities to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Early detection of prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial, but changes in the PSA threshold, frequency of screening, and the use of other biomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening. Several new biomarkers for individuals with raised PSA concentrations or those diagnosed with prostate cancer are likely to identify individuals who can be spared aggressive treatment. Several pharmacological agents such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and aspirin could prevent development of prostate cancer. In this Review, we discuss the present evidence and research questions regarding prevention, early detection of prostate cancer, and management of men either at high risk of prostate cancer or diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer.

p53 Immunohistochemistry as a Prognostic Marker in Bladder Cancer

Objectives: Anomalies of the p53 tumor suppressor gene have been reported for a variety of different tumor types. Also in urothelial cancer accumulation of the P53 protein has been linked with an unfavorable prognosis of the patients. Despite the growing number of publications confusion remains because key questions regarding p53 accumulation in bladder cancer are still unanswered. The objective of this manuscript was to review all published literature on the association of p53 accumulation and prognosis of patients with bladder cancer. Furthermore, putative reasons for the conflicting results should be defined as a basis for future research.Methods: The entry criteria for the analysis were met by 43 trials comprising 3,764 patients out of 138 publications found through Medline search.Results: Comparison between the trials yielded considerable differences obviously due to technical aspects, e.g. the selection of the antibody and the use of different cut–off values, study design and patient selection.Conclusions: From this analysis it becomes evident that further retrospective investigations will not contribute to the solution of the problem and thus are obsolete. There is an obvious need for standardization of the assay procedure and the assessment of the specimens as well as for the initiation of a prospective multicenter trial to provide definite answers.

ICUD-EAU international consultation on bladder cancer 2012: Screening, diagnosis, and molecular markers

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2nd International Consultation on Bladder Cancer recommendations on the screening, diagnosis, and markers of bladder cancer using an evidence-based strategy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A detailed Medline analysis was performed for original articles addressing bladder cancer with regard to screening, diagnosis, markers, and pathology. Proceedings from the last 5 yr of major conferences were also searched. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The major findings are presented in an evidence-based fashion. Large retrospective and prospective data were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS Cystoscopy alone is the most cost-effective method to detect recurrence of bladder cancer. White-light cystoscopy is the gold standard for evaluation of the lower urinary tract; however, technology like fluorescence-aided cystoscopy and narrow-band imaging can aid in improving evaluations. Urine cytology is useful for the diagnosis of high-grade tumor recurrence. Molecular medicine holds the promise that clinical outcomes will be improved by directing therapy toward the mechanisms and targets associated with the growth of an individual patients tumor. The challenge remains to optimize measurement of these targets, evaluate the impact of such targets for therapeutic drug development, and translate molecular markers into the improved clinical management of bladder cancer patients. Physicians and researchers eventually will have a robust set of molecular markers to guide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment decisions for bladder cancer.

Considerations on implementing diagnostic markers into clinical decision making in bladder cancer

Bladder cancer is a common disease that is often detected late and has a high rate of recurrence and progression. Cystoscopy is the main tool in detection and surveillance of bladder cancer but is invasive and can miss some cancers. Cytology is frequently utilized but suffers from a poor sensitivity. There are several commercially available urine-based tumor markers currently available but their use is not recommended by guideline panels. Markers such as the Urovysion FISH assay and the NMP22 BladderChek test are approved for surveillance and detection in patients with hematuria. The added benefit of these markers and other commercially available markers (e.g. Ucyt+, BTA stat) has not been well investigated though it appears these markers are insufficiently sensitive to replace cystoscopy. Additional studies are needed to determine the clinical scenarios where bladder markers are best utilized (screening, surveillance, early detection, evaluating cytologic atypia) and what impact they should have on clinical decision making. Furthermore, a variety of issues and barriers can affect the movement of clinical tests from research to clinical practice. This article addresses some of the challenges facing research and medical communities in the delivery and integration of markers for bladder cancer diagnosis. Moreover, we attempt to outline criteria for the clinical utility of new bladder cancer diagnostic markers.

Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer

OBJECTIVE To critically review and illustrate current methodological and statistical considerations for bladder cancer biomarker discovery and evaluation. METHODS Original, review, and methodological articles, and editorials were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS Biomarkers may be useful at multiple stages of bladder cancer management: early detection, diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and treatment; however, few novel biomarkers are currently used in clinical practice. The reasons for this disjunction are many and reflect the long and difficult pathway from candidate biomarker discovery to clinical assay, and the lack of coherent and comprehensive processes (pipelines) for biomarker development. Conceptually, the development of new biomarkers should be a process that is similar to therapeutic drug evaluation-a highly regulated process with carefully regulated phases from discovery to human applications. In a further effort to address the pervasive problem of inadequacies in the design, analysis, and reporting of biomarker prognostic studies, a set of reporting recommendations are discussed. For example, biomarkers should provide unique information that adds to known clinical and pathologic information. Conventional multivariable analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate improved prediction of outcomes. Predictive models, including or excluding any new putative biomarker, need to show clinically significant improvement of performance in order to claim any real benefit. Towards this end, proper model building, avoidance of overfitting, and external validation are crucial. In addition, it is important to choose appropriate performance measures dependent on outcome and prediction type and to avoid the use of cutpoints. Biomarkers providing a continuous score provide potentially more useful information than cutpoints since risk fits a continuum model. Combination of complementary and independent biomarkers is likely to better capture the biological potential of a tumor than any single biomarker. Finally, methods that incorporate clinical consequences such as decision curve analysis are crucial to the evaluation of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS Attention to sound design and statistical practice should be delivered as early as possible and will help maximize the promise of biomarkers for patient care. Studies should include a measure of predictive accuracy and clinical decision-analysis. External validation using data from an independent cohort provides the strongest evidence that a model is valid. There is a need for adequately assessed clinical biomarkers in bladder cancer.

Molecular markers for bladder cancer screening, early diagnosis, and surveillance: The WHO/ICUD consensus

Due to the lack of disease-specific symptoms, diagnosis and follow-up of bladder cancer has remained a challenge to the urologic community. Cystoscopy, commonly accepted as a gold standard for the detection of bladder cancer, is invasive and relatively expensive, while urine cytology is of limited value specifically in low-grade disease. Over the last decades, numerous molecular assays for the diagnosis of urothelial cancer have been developed and investigated with regard to their clinical use. However, although all of these assays have been shown to have superior sensitivity as compared to urine cytology, none of them has been included in clinical guidelines. The key reason for this situation is that none of the assays has been included into clinical decision-making so far. We reviewed the current status and performance of modern molecular urine tests following systematic analysis of the value and limitations of commercially available assays. Despite considerable advances in recent years, the authors feel that at this stage the added value of molecular markers for the diagnosis of urothelial tumors has not yet been identified. Current data suggest that some of these markers may have the potential to play a role in screening and surveillance of bladder cancer. Well-designed protocols and prospective, controlled trials will be needed to provide the basis to determine whether integration of molecular markers into clinical decision-making will be of value in the future.

p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer—a new approach to an old question

OBJECTIVE For nearly 20 years, the putative prognostic value of P53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer has been controversially discussed, and key questions are still unanswered. The aim of this article was to elucidate the different findings using the new concept of a combined analysis of raw data from previously published material. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-six of 38 study centers approached contributed patient data sets according to the protocol requirements; 3,421 patients with bladder cancer from 25 centers are included in the further analysis. The entire study group (mean age: 66.5 years) comprised 2,697 males (78.8 %) and 719 females. For 2,298 patients (68%) with non-muscle-invasive tumors Ta (1314), TIS (37), and T1 (947) (38.9, 1.1, and 28%, respectively) a median survival time of 130 months was calculated. The remaining 1,082 patients (32%) had advanced tumors (>T2) and a median survival time of 26 months. Of the 1,241 patients who have died, 744 patients died from bladder cancer and another 497 patients from intercurrent disease. RESULTS With regard to gender, age, and tumor stage, the patients included reflected a normal bladder cancer population. Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant correlation between P53 positivity vs. tumor grade and tumor stage. Uni- and multivariate analyses showed that P53 positivity was significantly correlated with tumor progression (as defined by the different centers) in T1 disease (P < 0.001) as well as in advanced bladder cancer (P < 0.001), but not in Ta tumors. CONCLUSIONS P53 immunohistochemistry appears to be predictive in high grade bladder cancer, however, the magnitude of this association varies among tumor stages. The results of this trial demonstrate the relevance of sufficient study size, provide a basis to define suitable patient populations, and allow an estimation of an adequate size of study cohorts for prospective trials. It also demonstrates the importance of common recommendations for evaluation and reporting of marker studies. Furthermore, this initiative demonstrates the strong will of a large number of investigators to contribute to combined efforts in order to establish pathways for standardization of marker development and clinical use.

Guidelines for development of diagnostic markers in bladder cancer

ObjectivesAdvances in understanding cancer at the molecular level have identified numerous alterations associated with cancer development and progression. The efforts in evaluating these putative biomarkers in clinical studies of patients with cancer are increasing in order to improve the clinical management of the disease. However, despite numerous attempts, the results of such biomarker studies are frequently inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory. Aim of this work is to discuss some of the recognized problems which have impeded our understanding of the role of new markers and prevented the introduction of these markers into patient management.ResultsThese Problems include standardization issues, selection of patient cohorts and endpoints and statistical considerations. In order to improve and standardize marker development a stepwise procedure in four phases, analogous to clinical trials is proposed. Furthermore, a common terminology, considerations on the population to study as well as general recommendations for planning and conducting the evaluation of markers will be presented.ConclusionThe implementation of this discussion may foster the integration of new tools and strategies screening, diagnosis and surveillance of patients with bladder cancer.

Molecular markers for urothelial bladder cancer prognosis: Toward implementation in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES To summarize the current status of clinicopathological and molecular markers for the prediction of recurrence or progression or both in non-muscle-invasive and survival in muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, to address the reproducibility of pathology and molecular markers, and to provide directions toward implementation of molecular markers in future clinical decision making. METHODS AND MATERIALS Immunohistochemistry, gene signatures, and FGFR3-based molecular grading were used as molecular examples focussing on prognostics and issues related to robustness of pathological and molecular assays. RESULTS The role of molecular markers to predict recurrence is limited, as clinical variables are currently more important. The prediction of progression and survival using molecular markers holds considerable promise. Despite a plethora of prognostic (clinical and molecular) marker studies, reproducibility of pathology and molecular assays has been understudied, and lack of reproducibility is probably the main reason that individual prediction of disease outcome is currently not reliable. CONCLUSIONS Molecular markers are promising to predict progression and survival, but not recurrence. However, none of these are used in the daily clinical routine because of reproducibility issues. Future studies should focus on reproducibility of marker assessment and consistency of study results by incorporating scoring systems to reduce heterogeneity of reporting. This may ultimately lead to incorporation of molecular markers in clinical practice.