Advertisement

How Good Are We at Predicting Outcomes in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer?

  • Richard Sylvester
Chapter

Abstract

Being able to accurately predict a non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patient’s risk of recurrence and progression to muscle invasive disease is important for choosing the most appropriate treatment after transurethral resection and for scheduling further follow up. European Association of Urology guidelines are based on tools for predicting patient outcome which have been developed by the EORTC and by CUETO. These tools are reviewed and their limitations and discrepancies are discussed. The need to improve the identification of which T1G3/HG patients are at the highest risk of progression to muscle invasive disease is highlighted. Although improvements in risk stratification may be based on molecular markers, more work in this field on their identification and validation is needed before they can be incorporated into daily clinical practice. Because patients who progress have a very poor prognosis, the identification of those factors that significantly increase our ability to identify, at an early stage, patients who progress on intravesical treatment should be a top research priority.

Keywords

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer Prognosis Prediction Patient outcome Recurrence Progression 

References

  1. 1.
    Soukup V, Capoun O, Cohen D, et al. Prognostic performance and reproducibility of the 1973 and 2004/2016 World Health Organization Grading classification systems in non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a European Association of Urology non-muscle invasive bladder cancer guidelines panel systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;2(5):801–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Meijden A, Sylvester R, Collette L, Bono A, Ten Kate F. The role and impact of pathology review on stage and grade assessment of stages Ta and T1 bladder tumors: a combined analysis of 5 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trials. J Urol. 2000;164:1533–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brausi M, Collette L, Kurth KH, et al. Variability in the recurrence rate at the first follow up cystoscopy after TUR in stage Ta T1 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a combined analysis of seven EORTC studies. Eur Urol. 2002;41:523–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babjuk M, Burger M, Comperat E, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (TaT1 and CIS). Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2017. http://uroweb.org/guideline/non-muscle-invasive-bladder-cancer/.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M, et al. EAU guidelines on non–muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017;71:447–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kluth LA, Black PC, Bochner BH, et al. Prognostic and prediction tools in bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68:238–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden AP, Oosterlinck W, et al. 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;49:466–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernandez-Gomez J, Madero R, Solsona E, et al. Predicting non-muscle invasive bladder cancer recurrence and progression in patients treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin: the CUETO scoring model. J Urol. 2009;182:2195–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cambier S, Sylvester RJ, Collette L, et al. EORTC nomograms and risk groups for predicting recurrence, progression, and disease specific and overall survival in non–muscle-invasive stage Ta-T1 urothelial bladder cancer patients treated with 1-3 years of maintenance bacillus Calmette-Guerin. Eur Urol. 2016;69:60–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez-Gomez J, Madero R, Solsona E, et al. The EORTC tables overestimate the risk of recurrence and progression in patients with non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin: external validation of the EORTC risk tables. Eur Urol. 2011;60:423–30.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sylvester RJ. How well can you actually predict which non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients will progress? Eur Urol. 2011;60:431–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gontero P, Sylvester R, Pisano F, et al. Prognostic factors and risk groups in T1G3 non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients initially treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin: results of a retrospective multicenter study of 2451 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;67:74–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palou J, Sylvester RJ, Faba OR, et al. Female gender and carcinoma in situ in the prostatic urethra are prognostic factors for recurrence, progression, and disease-specific mortality in T1G3 bladder cancer patients treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin. Eur Urol. 2012;62:118–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Rhijn BWG, Zuiverloon TCM, Vis AN, et al. Molecular grade (FGFR3/MIB-1) and EORTC risk scores are predictive in primary non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;58:433–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Heijden AG, Mengual L, Lozano JJ, et al. A five-gene expression signature to predict progression in T1G3 bladder cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2016;64:127–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Sylvester
    • 1
  1. 1.EAU Guidelines OfficeBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations