4.1 Review

Predictive factors for recurrence progression and cancer specific survival in high-risk bladder cancer

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 415-420

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328356ac20

Keywords

high risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer; predictive clinical factors; predictive molecular factors; progression; recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Despite standard treatment with transurethral resection (TUR) and adjuvant Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), a large percentage of high-risk bladder cancer (HRBC) recur, and some progress. On the basis of review of the current guidelines and literature, we have developed actualized clinical and molecular prognostic factors of recurrence, progression and cancer specific survival (CSS) in patients with HRBC. Recent findings A Medline search was conducted to identify the current literature updating the most important clinic and pathological predictive factors published in the last years. Also, there have been reviewed the new molecular markers that can assess prognosis and BCG response. Summary Despite different methodological bias, as short follow-up, a small number of patients and a different definition of prognostic factors, increased evidence supports sex, age, grade, stage, multifocality, history of previous recurrences, carcinoma in situ in the prostatic urethra and early recurrence as prognostic factors for recurrence, progression and CSS in nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Also lymphovascular invasion in TUR and new molecular markers (galectin-3, profilin-1, and combination of markers) are increasingly useful in predicting prognosis and BCG response. Moreover, there is enough evidence to consider the implementation of new specific risk tables for patients treated with BCG. In cases with poor prognostic factors after TUR in HRBC early cystectomy should be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available