Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The argument against screening for bladder cancer in neuro-urological patients

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this article was to present the case against screening people with neuro-urological disease for bladder cancer.

Methods

Literature around bladder cancer in neuro-urological patients (primarily spinal cord injured patients [SCI]) was identified.

Results

Bladder cancer is more common among patients with spinal cord injury, although the absolute risk is still low (between 0.3 and 0.6%). It is generally an aggressive disease, with atypical pathologic subtypes, and a high risk of mortality. It usually presents 15–30 years after SCI, and chronic inflammation of the bladder (due to catheters and urinary infections) may be risk factors. The debate about whether these patients should be screened for bladder cancer has persisted in the literature, and many physicians have justified a yearly cystoscopy as means of screening for bladder cancer. However, when examining the limited direct evidence of screening for bladder cancer, and the requirements for a screening test, it does not appear that bladder cancer screening is a rationale undertaking due to the low incidence, and unclear natural history. However, urologists should continue to be vigilant and appropriately investigate patients with high-risk symptoms such as hematuria, frequent UTIs, scrotal infection, or urethral discharge.

Conclusion

The current literature does not support screening patients with SCI for bladder cancer; however, physicians should have a high-evel of suspicion for symptoms suggestive of bladder cancer, and evaluate these at-risk patients promptly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

not applicable.

Code availability

not applicable.

References

  1. Nyquist RH (1965) Morality in spinal cord injuries. Calif Med 103(6):417–419

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Welk B, McIntyre A, Teasell R et al (2013) Bladder cancer in individuals with spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2013.33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gui-Zhong L, Li-Bo M (2017) Bladder cancer in individuals with spinal cord injuries: a meta-analysis. Spinal Cord 55:341–345. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ismail S, Karsenty G, Chartier-Kastler E et al (2018) Prevalence, management, and prognosis of bladder cancer in patients with neurogenic bladder: a systematic review. Neurourol Urodynam 37:1386–1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Groah SL, Weitzenkamp DA, Lammertse DP et al (2002) Excess risk of bladder cancer in spinal cord injury: evidence for an association between indwelling catheter use and bladder cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83:346–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalisvaart JF, Katsumi HK, Ronningen LD, Hovey RM (2010) Bladder cancer in spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord 48:257–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ho C-H, Sung K-C, Lim S-W et al (2015) Chronic indwelling urinary catheter increase the risk of bladder cancer, even in patients without spinal cord injury. Medicine 94:e1736. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000001736

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Böthig R, Tiburtius C, Schöps W et al (2021) Urinary bladder cancer as a late sequela of traumatic spinal cord injury. Mil Medical Res 8:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-021-00322-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Savic G, DeVivo MJ, Frankel HL et al (2017) Causes of death after traumatic spinal cord injury—a 70-year British study. Spinal Cord 55:891–897. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2017.64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nahm LS, Chen Y, DeVivo MJ, Lloyd LK (2015) Bladder cancer mortality after spinal cord injury over 4 decades. J Urol 193:1923–1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garnier S, Vendrell J, Boillot B et al (2020) Malignancy after augmentation enterocystoplasty: a nationwide study of natural history, prognosis and oncogene panel analysis. J Urol 204:136–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abol-enein H (2008) Infection: is it a cause of bladder cancer? Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. https://doi.org/10.1080/03008880802325309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Böthig R, Tiburtius C, Fiebag K et al (2020) Traumatic spinal cord injury confers bladder cancer risk to patients managed without permanent urinary catheterization: lessons from a comparison of clinical data with the national database. World J Urol 38:2827–2834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03077-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davies B, Chen JJ, McMurry T et al (2005) Efficacy of BTA stat, cytology, and survivin in bladder cancer surveillance over 5 years in patients with spinal cord injury. Urology 66:908–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stonehill WH, Goldman HB, Dmochowski RR (1997) The use of urine cytology for diagnosing bladder cancer in spinal cord injured patients. J Urol 157:2112–2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64688-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sammer U, Walter M, Knüpfer SC et al (2015) Do we need surveillance urethro-cystoscopy in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction? PLoS ONE 10:e0140970–e0140970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang C, Clowers D (1999) Screening cystoscopy in chronically catheterized spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord 37:204–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Higuchi TT, Fox JA, Husmann DA (2011) Annual endoscopy and urine cytology for the surveillance of bladder tumors after enterocystoplasty for congenital bladder anomalies. J Urol 186:1791–1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamid R, Greenwell TJ, Nethercliffe JM et al (2009) Routine surveillance cystoscopy for patients with augmentation and substitution cystoplasty for benign urological conditions: is it necessary? BJU Int 104:392–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2009.08401.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dobrow MJ, Hagens V, Chafe R et al (2018) Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process. Can Med Assoc J 190:E422–E429. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.171154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. El Masri y Masri WS, Patil S, Prasanna KV, Chowdhury JR (2013) To cystoscope or not to cystoscope patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries managed with indwelling urethral or suprapubic catheters? That is the question! Spinal Cord 52:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2013.119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

none.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Urologist), Western University, Room B4-667, St Joseph’s Health Care, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON, N6A 4V2, Canada

    Blayne Welk

Authors
  1. Blayne Welk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BW was solely responsible for this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blayne Welk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

none.

Ethical approval

not applicable.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This work did not involve any work with animals or human participants.

Informed consent

not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Welk, B. The argument against screening for bladder cancer in neuro-urological patients. World J Urol 40, 1915–1919 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03802-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03802-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation