Advertisement

Early-Invasive Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma and Instillation Treatment of Non-muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

  • Wolfgang OttoEmail author
  • Maximilian Burger
  • Johannes Breyer
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Stage T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a very special subentity of urothelial bladder carcinoma showing progression in up to 50% within 5 years after first diagnosis. This chapter recalls recommended diagnosis and treatment of early-invasive bladder cancer in special and conservative adjuvant instillation treatment of NMIBC in general. In the end, indications of immediate and early cystectomy of NMIBC are discussed.

Keywords

Early-invasive bladder cancer Stage T1 Prognosis Intravesical chemotherapy Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Early cystectomy 

Introduction

Early-invasive urothelial bladder cancer is a non-muscle-invasive bladder tumor at stage T1 with various clinical outcomes. While one third shows never recurrence, another third of patients recurs under progression and must be cystectomied to prevent death of disease that occurs at the level of stage T2 disease (Shahin et al. 2003).

Diagnosis of Stage T1 Bladder Cancer

Diagnostic assessment of stage T1 bladder cancer includes several steps that require increasing invasiveness and result in the histopathological verification of the urothelial carcinoma. The clinical suspicion has to lead to further investigation, as screening for bladder cancer is not recommended (Krogsboll et al. 2015).

Clinical Symptoms

Hematuria is the leading symptom in patients with bladder cancer, with the majority of the patients presenting with asymptomatic macroscopic hematuria (Kamat et al. 2016). Only 2–4% of the patients presenting with mircoscopic hematuria have bladder cancer (Sharp et al. 2013). Nonetheless, recurring microhematuria in combination with one of the known risk factors (past or current smoking, male sex, exposure to chemicals, etc.) demands further investigation (Sharp et al. 2013). Patients without hematuria suffer from a delayed diagnosis (Mansson et al. 1993). Other symptoms that may indicate towards bladder cancer are: urgency or dysuric symptoms.

Physical Examination

Physical examination cannot reveal stage T1 bladder cancer (Babjuk et al. 2016), but it should be performed to reveal a potential hydronephrosis through flank pain. Papillary or solid stage T1 tumor in or near the ureteral orifice can cause a hydronephrosis.

Ultrasound

Transabdominal ultrasound is recommended to detect visible intraluminal tumors of the bladder (Babjuk et al. 2016). Furthermore, differential diagnoses of hematuria like renal tumor, renal stone, or a hydronephrosis, as a result of obstruction by urolithiasis or urothelial carcinoma, can be detected.

Imaging

Radiologic imaging should be used in selected cases and is not recommended in routine diagnosis of bladder cancer (Babjuk et al. 2016). Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) has a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 94% and accuracy of 91% and is not recommended for routine use in the detection of primary bladder cancer (Babjuk et al. 2016; Jinzaki et al. 2016). Intravenous urography (IVU) or computed tomography (CT) is able to detect papillary tumors of the upper urinary tract but not recommended due to the low incidence of findings (Babjuk et al. 2016; Goessl et al. 1997; Palou et al. 2005; Holmäng et al. 1998). The MDCT-scan of the abdomen has the highest sensitivity (93.5–95.8%), specificity (94.8–100%), and accuracy (94.2–99.6%) in detection of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and thus should be the first option (Babjuk et al. 2016; Jinzaki et al. 2016). The IVU is inferior concerning sensitivity (75.0–80.4%), specificity (81.0–86.0%), and accuracy (80.8–84.9%) (Jinzaki et al. 2016). The MDCT can show smaller masses, is not impaired by intraabdominal gas, and can distinguish tumors from blood clots or stones (Jinzaki et al. 2016). Further information that can be acquired through MDCT is lymph node status and intrarenal tumors. Thus the IVU is recommended as an alternative if CT is not available (Babjuk et al. 2016; Nolte-Ernsting and Cowan 2006). MDCT and retrograde urography have similar sensitivity and specificity with MDCT being a not invasive procedure (Razavi et al. 2012). In case of contrast allergy, pregnancy or in young patients MRI of the abdomen can be performed but has several limitations like a poorer resolution, various artefacts, and large studies comparing MRI to MDCT are missing (Vikram et al. 2009).

Imaging of the upper urinary tract should be considered in case of bladder tumor in the trigone, which has an incidence of 7.5% concomitant UTUC (Palou et al. 2005) and in follow-up of multiple and high risk tumors (Millán-Rodríguez et al. 2000).

Urinary Cytology

Examination of voided urine or bladder-washing specimens is performed to detect exfoliated tumor cells. The quality of urinary cytology depends on several parameters. The sensitivity depends on tumor grade, as the reported sensitivity for high grade or G3 tumors is 84%, for low grade or G1 tumors is 16% and for CIS is 60%, respectively (Yafi et al. 2015; Casey et al. 2015). Furthermore, evaluation of urinary cytology has high interobserver variability but specificity can raise up to 90% in experienced observers (Babjuk et al. 2016; Raitanen et al. 2002). Thus cytology can be considered in patients with CIS, G3, or high grade tumors in addition to cystoscopic evaluation. Negative urinary cytology does not exclude bladder cancer, whereas an urothelial carcinoma anywhere in the urothelial tract can result in a positive urinary cytology.

Voided first morning urine should not be used due to cytolysis because of the long contact to toxic substances within the urine (Layfield et al. 2004). The urine specimen should be collected 3–4 h after the last voiding and processed as soon as possible (Layfield et al. 2004). Urine washings with sterile isotonic solution concomitant to cystoscopy can also be used (Layfield et al. 2004). Intravesical infections, stones, intravesical instillation therapy, and low cell count can affect the quality of evaluation (Babjuk et al. 2016).

Urinary Marker Tests

Given the low sensitivity of urinary cytology especially for low grade tumors, various noninvasive urine tests have been the focus of many studies (Lokeshwar et al. 2005; Glas et al. 2003; van Rhijn et al. 2005; Vrooman and Witjes 2008; Lotan et al. 2010; Yutkin et al. 2010; Agarwal et al. 2008). Table 1 shows the sensitivities and specificities of the different tests compared to urinary cytology. The accuracy of urinary test systems is of course impaired by urinary infections, urolithiasis, and other malignant diseases of the urinary tract or manipulation.
Table 1

Sensitivities and specificities of the different urinary tests (adapted from (Babjuk et al. 2016))

Test system

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

Sensitivity for high grade tumors (%)

Urinary cytology

16–84

90

84

UroVysion (FISH)

30–86

63–95

66–70

Microsatellite analysis

58–92

73–100

90–92

Immunocyt/uCyt+

52–100

63–79

62–92

Nuclear matrix protein (NMP) 22

47–100

55–98

75–92

BTA stat

29–83

56–86

62–91

BTA TRAK

53–91

28–83

74–77

Cytokeratins

12–88

73–95

33–100

To date, none of the urinary marker tests is recommended in the routine diagnosis of (primary) bladder cancer and none can reduce follow-up cystoscopies (Babjuk et al. 2016). As outlined above, there is also no application of these tests in bladder cancer screening. Few indications remain – especially for low or intermediate risk tumors – where urinary tests may give additional information to the golden standard cystoscopy. As the early-invasive T1 bladder cancer always displays a high risk tumor, follow-up should always include frequent cystoscopy and cytology and urinary marker tests are irrelevant in this situation (Babjuk et al. 2016).

Cystoscopy

Despite the improvement in urine tests or imaging, cystoscopy remains the golden standard in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Cystoscopy is regularly performed in an outpatient setting. Flexible instruments are recommended for the examination in men (Babjuk et al. 2016; Aaronson et al. 2009). In symptoms suggestive for bladder cancer, the visual examination of the bladder through cystoscopy can reveal papillary or solid lesions that have to be followed by transurethral resection of the bladder (TUR-B) and histological evaluation. Cystoscopy should be performed schematically and subtle to make every area visible. If concomitant Cis is suspected – usually displayed by a flat and red lesion – cystoscopy and histological evaluation should be complemented by urinary cytology and multiple biopsies (Kurth et al. 1995).

Treatment of Stage T1 Bladder Cancer

Transurethral Resection

After detection of papillary, solid or flat lesions via cystoscopy, transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) always is the first step in bladder cancer treatment. It should clarify the diagnosis and macroscopically remove the complete tumor burden (Babjuk et al. 2016). There are different strategies to resect bladder tumors: small masses should be cut out en bloc, while larger ones are resected in fractions separated in the exophytic part of the tumor, the detrusor muscle, and the tumor surrounding areas. Random biopsies should be taken in cases of suspect cytology without macroscopic tumors from the four bladder walls, the trigone, and dome of the bladder to assess macroscopically hardly detectable carcinoma in situ (CIS). In our days, random biopsies were replaced by photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) that could show an increase of 23% in detection of CIS (Kausch et al. 2010). For exophytic non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) PDD results in a statistically significantly better recurrence-free survival over all NMIBC risk groups and due to decrease of hospitalization in a reduction of tumor-related costs (Otto et al. 2009).

High rates of residual tumor burden in stage T1 bladder cancer of up to 65% and the danger of under-staging in initial TURB of 20% demonstrate the need of second resection in this patient group 2–6 weeks after initial TURB (Patschan et al. 2017; Hautmann et al. 2009). Due to high risk of recurrence and progression in early-invasive bladder cancer in every case of stage T1 bladder cancer, further treatment is essential.

Further Treatment Options

The guidelines of the leading international associations of urology recommend at least some sort of instillation therapy in every case of NMIBC. This applies especially for stage T1 bladder cancer, where at least long-term immunotherapy by intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment should be performed and in some circumstances even early cystectomy is demanded, e.g., in high-grade stage T1 bladder cancer with associated CIS (Denzinger et al. 2008). Today European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk factors are decisive for prognostification of NMIBC.

The results of seven trials with 2596 patients were combined in the EORTC score to predict recurrence and progression of patients with NMIBC (Sylvester et al. 2006). The following clinical and pathological parameters have been included: number of tumors, tumor diameter, prior recurrence rate, stage, associated CIS, and grade (Table 2). The feasibility of this EORTC score for early-invasive bladder cancer at stage T1 is limited because the patients in these trials did not undergo a second TUR-B or receive maintenance BCG therapy. Furthermore, drugs for intravesical treatment have been used that are no longer used.
Table 2

EORTC risk calculator for disease recurrence and progression. (Adapted from Sylvester et al. 2006)

Factor

Recurrence

Progression

Number of tumors

Single

0

0

2–7

3

3

≥8

6

3

Tumor diameter

<3 cm

0

0

≥3 cm

3

3

Prior recurrence rate

Primary

0

0

≤1 recurrence/year

2

2

>1 recurrence/year

4

2

Stage

Ta

0

0

T1

1

4

Concomitant CIS

No

0

0

Yes

1

6

Grade

G1

0

0

G2

1

0

G3

2

5

Thus the CUETO group developed a score for patients treated with intravesical BCG (Fernandez-Gomez et al. 2009). The following clinical and pathological parameters have been included: sex, age, prior recurrence status, number of tumors, stage, concomitant CIS, and grade. Due to the more effective BCG treatment, the recurrence rates are lower than in the EORTC score, whereas the progression rates are only lower in high risk patients (Fernandez-Gomez et al. 2009). In patients treated with BCG, number of tumors and prior recurrence rate are the best predictors for recurrence. Regarding progression, stage and grade are the most important factors (Babjuk et al. 2016) (Table 3).
Table 3

Probability of disease recurrence and progression according to EORTC score. (Adapted from Babjuk et al. 2016)

Recurrence score

Probability of recurrence at 1 year (%)

Probability of recurrence at 5 years (%)

Recurrence risk

0

15 (10–19)

31 (24–37)

Low

1–4

24 (21–26)

46 (42–49)

Intermediate

5–9

38 (35–41)

62 (58–65)

Intermediate

10–17

61 (55–67)

78 (73–84)

High

Progression score

Probability of progression at 1 year

Probability of progression at 5 years (%)

Progression risk

0

0.2 (0–0.7) %

0.8 (0–1.7)

Low

2–6

1 (0.4–1.6) %

6 (5–8)

Intermediate

7–13

5 (4–7) %

17 (14–20)

High

14–23

17 (10–24)

45 (35–55)

High

Considering grading, there is evidence that well-differentiated G1 tumors do not exist in stage T1 bladder cancer (Mikulowski and Hellsten 2005; Otto et al. 2011). Furthermore, in early-invasive bladder cancer at stage T1, the WHO1973 classification, that discriminates G1, G2, and G3 tumors is more suitable in prognosis prediction than the two-armed WHO2004/2016 classification that discriminates between low-grade and high-grade tumors (Otto et al. 2011; May et al. 2010).

Interobserver-variability leads to 40–50% nonconforming results regarding staging Ta vs. T1 and grading (May et al. 2010; Murphy et al. 2002; Bol et al. 2003; van Rhijn et al. 2010a). The reproducibility of the WHO2004/2016 classification is not superior to the WHO1973 classification (May et al. 2010; Rhijn et al. 2010b; Mangrud et al. 2014).

Intravesical Chemotherapy

Indeed EORTC risk factors remain the only established parameters in supporting the treatment decision of NMIBC. Whether intravesical chemotherapy or immunotherapy should take place depend on the probability of recurrence or progression. Where recurrence is the foremost risk of patients, intravesical chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with low risk of recurrence only demand an immediate instillation of chemotherapy, which reduces the 2-year recurrence rate statistically significant (Hinotsu et al. 1999). Further instillation treatment is not suitable in these cases.

For patients with intermediate or high risk of recurrence, adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy is recommended. Advantage of chemotherapy with foremost mitomycin C (MMC) instillations was proven for tumor recurrence but not progression in initial and recurrent NMIBC (Huncharek et al. 2000; Huncharek et al. 2001). There is no clear recommendation concerning duration of intravesival chemotherapy, mostly continued for 1 year (Sylvester et al. 2008).

Intravesical Immunotherapy

Especially for high risk NMIBC concerning recurrence and progression various meta-analyses could show that Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is superior to MMC instillation treatment and other substances for intravesical treatment, e.g., epirubicin (Järvinen et al. 2009; Sylvester et al. 2010). Early-invasive bladder cancer should be treated by BCG instillations after reresection. Six weekly instillations should be mandatory, maintenance therapy is recommended (Böhle et al. 2003). Only these patients could show a statistically significant reduction of progression rate, but a distinct schedule could not be established yet. Indeed it should endure at least 1 year with up to 27 instillations up to 3 years (Lamm et al. 2000).

BCG Failure and Early Cystectomy

Immediate and early cystectomy describes radical cystectomy that is performed in patients with NMIBC either without instillation treatment or after NMIBC recurrence after failure of intravesical therapy. Based on the classification described above, stage T1 early-invasive bladder cancer always displays a high risk or even highest risk situation, where early cystectomy at least should be considered as an alternative to the bladder sparing approach by instillation therapy. Besides the clinical and pathological parameters indicative for early cystectomy, this is an individual decision that has to integrate patient’s age, physiological and mental status. It has to be considered that more than 30% of the T1 tumors are understaged in TURB (Patschan et al. 2017; Hautmann et al. 2009; Denzinger et al. 2008). Established indications for early cystectomy are: BCG-failure, T1G3 recurrence after BCG-treatment, refusal of BCG-treatment, and T1G3 tumor in diverticulum because of the lack of muscle layer (Babjuk et al. 2016; Golijanin et al. 2003).

Early cystectomy for early-invasive bladder cancer should always include lymph node dissection, due to understaging and about 9–18% lymph node metastases in radical cystectomy specimens of T1G3 bladder cancer (Kulkarni et al. 2010).

Besides these indications, morbidity and mortality of radical cystectomy have to be considered. Early cystectomy for stage T1 bladder cancer provides the best oncological safety, which is dearly bought by incontinence, sexual dysfunctions and a perioperative 90-day mortality of up to 9% (Aziz et al. 2014). The lack of strong suggestive parameters for immediate or early cystectomy in combination to the side effects results in an individual treatment decision in high risk or highest risk T1 bladder cancer.

References

  1. Aaronson DS, Walsh TJ, Smith JF, Davies BJ, Hsieh MH, Konety BR. Meta-analysis: does lidocaine gel before flexible cystoscopy provide pain relief? BJU Int. 2009;104(4):506–9; discussion 509–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal PK, Black PC, Kamat AM. Considerations on the use of diagnostic markers in management of patients with bladder cancer. World J Urol. 2008;26(1):39–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aziz A, May M, Burger M, Palisaar RJ, Trinh QD, Fritsche HM, Rink M, Chun F, Martini T, Bolenz C, Mayr R, Pycha A, Nuhn P, Stief C, Novotny V, Wirth M, Seitz C, Noldus J, Gilfrich C, Shariat SF, Brookman-May S, Bastian PJ, Denzinger S, Gierth M, Roghmann F, PROMETRICS 2011 research group. Prediction of 90-day mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in a prospective European multicenter cohort. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):156–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babjuk M, Böhle A, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, Hernández V, Kaasinen E, Palou J, Rouprêt M, van Rhijn BW, Shariat SF, Soukup V, Sylvester RJ, Zigeuner R, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2016;  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhle A, Jocham D, Bock PR. Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin versus mitomycin C for superficial bladder cancer: a formal meta-analysis of comparative studies on recurrence and toxicity. J Urol. 2003;169(1):90–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bol MG, Baak JP, Buhr-Wildhagen S, Kruse AJ, Kjellevold KH, Janssen EA, Mestad O, Øgreid P. Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1291–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casey RG, Catto JW, Cheng L, Cookson MS, Herr H, Shariat S, Witjes JA, Black PC. Diagnosis and management of urothelial carcinoma in situ of the lower urinary tract: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):876–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denzinger S, Fritsche HM, Otto W, Blana A, Wieland WF, Burger M. Early versus deferred cystectomy for initial high-risk pT1G3 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: do risk factors define feasibility of bladder-sparing approach? Eur Urol. 2008;53:146–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez-Gomez J, Madero R, Solsona E, Unda M, Martinez-Piñeiro L, Gonzalez M, Portillo J, Ojea A, Pertusa C, Rodriguez-Molina J, Camacho JE, Rabadan M, Astobieta A, Montesinos M, Isorna S, Muntañola P, Gimeno A, Blas M, Martinez-Piñeiro JA. Predicting nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer recurrence and progression in patients treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin: the CUETO scoring model. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2195–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glas AS, Roos D, Deutekom M, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Kurth KH. Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review. J Urol. 2003;169(6):1975–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goessl C, Knispel HH, Miller K, Klän R. Is routine excretory urography necessary at first diagnosis of bladder cancer? J Urol. 1997;157(2):480–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golijanin D, Yossepowitch O, Beck SD, Sogani P, Dalbagni G. Carcinoma in a bladder diverticulum: presentation and treatment outcome. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1761–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG, Gust K. Quantification of the survival benefit of early versus deferred cystectomy in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (T1 G3). World J Urol. 2009;27(3):347–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hinotsu S, Akaza H, Ohashi Y, Kotake T. Intravesical chemotherapy for maximum prophylaxis of new early phase superficial bladder carcinoma treated by transurethral resection: a combined analysis of trials by the Japanese urological Cancer research group using smoothed hazard function. Cancer. 1999;86(9): 1818–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmäng S, Hedelin H, Anderström C, Holmberg E, Johansson SL. Long-term followup of a bladder carcinoma cohort: routine followup urography is not necessary. J Urol. 1998;160(1):45–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huncharek M, Geschwind JF, Witherspoon B, McGarry R, Adcock D. Intravesical chemotherapy prophylaxis in primary superficial bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of 3703 patients from 11 randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(7):676–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huncharek M, McGarry R, Kupelnick B. Impact of intravesical chemotherapy on recurrence rate of recurrent superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: results of a meta-analysis. Anticancer Res. 2001;21(1B):765–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Järvinen R, Kaasinen E, Sankila A, Rintala E, FinnBladder Group. Long-term efficacy of maintenance bacillus Calmette-Guérin versus maintenance mitomycin C instillation therapy in frequently recurrent TaT1 tumours without carcinoma in situ: a subgroup analysis of the prospective, randomised FinnBladder I study with a 20-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2009;56(2):260–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jinzaki M, Kikuchi E, Akita H, Sugiura H, Shinmoto H, Oya M. Role of computed tomography urography in the clinical evaluation of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Urol. 2016;23(4):284–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamat AM, Hahn NM, Efstathiou JA, Lerner SP, Malmström PU, Choi W, Guo CC, Lotan Y, Kassouf W. Bladder cancer. Lancet. 2016;23(16):30512–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30512-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kausch I, Sommerauer M, Montorsi F, Stenzl A, Jacqmin D, Jichlinski P, Jocham D, Ziegler A, Vonthein R. Photodynamic diagnosis in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of prospective studies. Eur Urol. 2010;57(4):595–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krogsboll LT, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD010007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulkarni GS, Hakenberg OW, Gschwend JE, Thalmann G, Kassouf W, Kamat A, Zlotta A. An updated critical analysis of the treatment strategy for newly diagnosed high-grade T1 (previously T1G3) bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):60–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurth KH, Schellhammer PF, Okajima E, Akdas A, Jakse G, Herr HW, Calais da Silva F, Fukushima S, Nagayama T. Current methods of assessing and treating carcinoma in situ of the bladder with or without involvement of the prostatic urethra. Int J Urol. 1995;2(Suppl 2):8–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamm DL, Blumenstein BA, Crissman JD, Montie JE, Gottesman JE, Lowe BA, Sarosdy MF, Bohl RD, Grossman HB, Beck TM, Leimert JT, Crawford ED. Maintenance bacillus Calmette-Guerin immunotherapy for recurrent TA, T1 and carcinoma in situ transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a randomized southwest oncology group study. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1124–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V, Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting : the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(1):24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lokeshwar VB, Habuchi T, Grossman HB, Murphy WM, Hautmann SH, Hemstreet GP 3rd, Bono AV, Getzenberg RH, Goebell P, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Schalken JA, Fradet Y, Marberger M, Messing E, Droller MJ. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology. 2005;66(6 Suppl 1):35–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lotan Y, Shariat SF, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Sanchez-Carbayo M, Jankevicius F, Racioppi M, Minner SJ, Stöhr B, Bassi PF, Grossman HB. Considerations on implementing diagnostic markers into clinical decision making in bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(4): 441–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mangrud OM, Waalen R, Gudlaugsson E, Dalen I, Tasdemir I, Janssen EA, Baak JP. Reproducibility and prognostic value of WHO1973 and WHO2004 grading systems in TaT1 urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e83192.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mansson A, Anderson H, Colleen S. Time lag to diagnosis of bladder cancer – influence of psychosocial parameters and level of health-care provision. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1993;27:363–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. May M, Brookman-Amissah S, Roigas J, Hartmann A, Störkel S, Kristiansen G, Gilfrich C, Borchardt R, Hoschke B, Kaufmann O, Gunia S. Prognostic accuracy of individual uropathologists in noninvasive urinary bladder carcinoma: a multicentre study comparing the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation classifications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):850–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mikulowski P, Hellsten S. T1 G1 urinary bladder carcinoma: fact or fiction? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2005;39(2):135–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Millán-Rodríguez F, Chéchile-Toniolo G, Salvador-Bayarri J, Huguet-Pérez J, Vicente-Rodríguez J. Upper urinary tract tumors after primary superficial bladder tumors: prognostic factors and risk groups. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1183–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy WM, Takezawa K, Maruniak NA. Interobserver discrepancy using the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of urothelial neoplasms: practical choices for patient care. J Urol. 2002;168(3):968–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nolte-Ernsting C, Cowan N. Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2670–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Otto W, Burger M, Fritsche HM, Blana A, Roessler W, Knuechel R, Wieland WF, Denzinger S. Photodynamic diagnosis for superficial bladder cancer: do all risk-groups profit equally from oncological and economic long-term results? Clin Med Oncol. 2009;3:53–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Otto W, Denzinger S, Fritsche HM, Burger M, Wieland WF, Hofstädter F, Hartmann A, Bertz S. The WHO classification of 1973 is more suitable than the WHO classification of 2004 for predicting survival in pT1 urothelial bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2011;107(3):404–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palou J, Rodríguez-Rubio F, Huguet J, Segarra J, Ribal MJ, Alcaraz A, Villavicencio H. Multivariate analysis of clinical parameters of synchronous primary superficial bladder cancer and upper urinary tract tumor. J Urol. 2005;174(3):859–61; discussion 861.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patschan O, Holmäng S, Hosseini A, Jancke G, Liedberg F, Ljungberg B, Malmström PU, Rosell J, Jahnson S. Second-look resection for primary stage T1 bladder cancer: a population-based study. Scand J Urol. 2017;51(4):301–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raitanen MP, Aine R, Rintala E, Kallio J, Rajala P, Juusela H, Tammela TL, FinnBladder Group. Differences between local and review urinary cytology in diagnosis of bladder cancer. An interobserver multicenter analysis. Eur Urol. 2002;41(3):284–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Razavi SA, Sadigh G, Kelly AM, Cronin P. Comparative effectiveness of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of upper and lower urinary tract malignancy: a critically appraised topic. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(9):1134–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shahin O, Thalmann GN, Rentsch C, Mazzucchelli L, Studer UE. A retrospective analysis of 153 patients treated with or without intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin for primary stage T1 grade 3 bladder cancer: recurrence, progression and survival. J Urol. 2003;169(1):96–100; discussion 100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharp VJ, Barnes KT, Erickson BA. Assessment of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(11):747–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden AP, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA, Bouffioux C, Denis L, Newling DW, Kurth K. Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol. 2006;49(3):466–5; discussion 475–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sylvester RJ, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA. The schedule and duration of intravesical chemotherapy in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review of the published results of randomized clinical trials. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):709–19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sylvester RJ, Brausi MA, Kirkels WJ, Hoeltl W, Calais Da Silva F, Powell PH, Prescott S, Kirkali Z, van de Beek C, Gorlia T, de Reijke TM. EORTC Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Group. Long-term efficacy results of EORTC genito-urinary group randomized phase 3 study 30911 comparing intravesical instillations of epirubicin, bacillus Calmette-Guérin, and bacillus Calmette-Guérin plus isoniazid in patients with intermediate- and high-risk stage ta T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5): 766–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2005;47(6):736–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Rhijn BW, van der Kwast TH, Kakiashvili DM, Fleshner NE, van der Aa MN, Alkhateeb S, Bangma CH, Jewett MA, Zlotta AR. Pathological stage review is indicated in primary pT1 bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2010a;106(2):206–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Rhijn BW, van Leenders GJ, Ooms BC, Kirkels WJ, Zlotta AR, Boevé ER, Jöbsis AC, van der Kwast TH. The pathologist’s mean grade is constant and individualizes the prognostic value of bladder cancer grading. Eur Urol. 2010b;57(6):1052–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vikram R, Sandler CM, Ng CS. Imaging and staging of transitional cell carcinoma: part 2, upper urinary tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1488–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vrooman OP, Witjes JA. Urinary markers in bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):909–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yafi FA, Brimo F, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):66.e25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yutkin V, Nisman B, Pode D. Can urinary biomarkers replace cystoscopic examination in bladder cancer surveillance? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(6): 787–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Otto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maximilian Burger
    • 1
  • Johannes Breyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyCaritas St. Josef Medical Centre, University of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Wolfgang Otto
    • 1
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Departement of UrologyWeill Cornell Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations