Follow-Up of Bladder Cancer

  • Helena Bock
  • Stephan MadersbacherEmail author
Reference work entry


The follow-up scheme of bladder cancer represents a balance between invasiveness, costs, and the risk of delaying a high-grade non-muscle-invasive/muscle-invasive tumor in the case of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and of early detection of local and/or distant recurrence in muscle-invasive disease (MIBC). All recommendations are largely based on retrospective data analysis; prospective studies to determine, e.g., the frequency of control cystoscopies and imaging are lacking. The follow-up scheme of NMIBC is driven by the risk group and of MIBC regarding the risk for local or distant metastases and of a recurrence in the upper urinary tract. More than 50% of all recurrences being detected are symptomatic; therefore a lifelong follow-up in asymptomatic patients is a matter of debate. Following radical cystectomy, follow-up should also include functional and metabolic aspects. The recommendations presented herein are primarily based on the recent guidelines of European Association of Urology (EAU). The guidelines compliance in daily practice regarding follow-up of bladder cancer remains low.


  1. AUA. American Urological association. Guidelines. Available from:
  2. Borhan A, et al. Grade progression and regression in recurrent urothelial cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cagiannos I, et al. Surveillance strategies after definitive therapy of invasive bladder cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3:S237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamie K, et al. Compliance with guidelines for patients with bladder cancer: variation in the delivery of care. Cancer. 2011;117(23):5392–401. Epub 2011 Jul 11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. CUA. Canadian Urological Association guidelines. Available from:
  6. EAU. European association of urology. Guidelines. Available from:
  7. Ehdaie B, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after radical cystectomy: a population-based analysis. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(6):779–84. Epub 2014 Jun 13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujii Y, et al. Long-term outcome of bladder papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential. BJU Int. 2003;92:559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giannarini G, et al. Do patients benefit from routine follow-up to detect recurrences after radical cystectomy and ileal orthotopic bladder substitution? Eur Urol. 2010;58:486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gofrit ON, et al. Watchful waiting policy in recurrent Ta G1 bladder tumors. Eur Urol. 2006;49:303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta A, et al. Risk of fracture after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta A, et al. Risk of vascular toxicity with platinum based chemotherapy in elderly patients with bladder cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(1):33–40. Epub 2015 Sep 1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmäng S, et al. Stage progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors: relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J Urol. 2001;165:1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holmäng S, et al. Stage Ta-T1 bladder cancer: the relationship between findings at first followup cystoscopy and subsequent recurrence and progression. J Urol. 2002;167:1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mariappan P, et al. A surveillance schedule for G1Ta bladder cancer allowing efficient use of check cystoscopy and safe discharge at 5 years based on a 25-year prospective database. J Urol. 2005;173:1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mathers MJ, et al. Is there evidence for a multidisciplinary follow-up after urological cancer? An evaluation of subsequent cancers. World J Urol. 2008;26:251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NCCN. National comprehensive cancer network guidelines. Available from:
  18. NICE. National institute for health and care excellence guidelines. Available from:
  19. Palou J, et al. Recurrence at three months and high-grade recurrence as prognostic factor of progression in multivariate analysis of T1G2 bladder tumors. Urology. 2009;73:1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Power NE, Izawa J. Comparison of guidelines on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (EAU, CUA, AUA, NCCN, NICE). Bladder Cancer. 2016;2(1):27–36. ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanderson KM, et al. Upper tract urothelial recurrence following radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: an analysis of 1,069 patients with 10-year followup. J Urol. 2007;177:2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soloway MS, et al. Expectant management of small, recurrent, noninvasive papillary bladder tumors. J Urol. 2003;170:438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solsona E, et al. The 3-month clinical response to intravesical therapy as a predictive factor for progression in patients with high risk superficial bladder cancer. J Urol. 2000;164:685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soukup V, et al. Follow-up after surgical treatment of bladder cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Volkmer BG, et al. Oncological followup after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer-is there any benefit? J Urol. 2009;181:1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vrooman OP, et al. Follow-up of patients after curative bladder cancer treatment: guidelines vs. practice. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20:437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyKaiser-Franz-Josef HospitalViennaAustria

Section editors and affiliations

  • Wolfgang Otto
    • 1
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 2
  1. 1.der Universität RegensburgOberarzt der Klinik für UrologieRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Departement of UrologyWeill Cornell Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations