Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer

A Collaborative Review

Yair Lotan, Peter C. Black, Laura Caba, Sam S. Chang, Michael S. Cookson, Siamak Daneshmand, Ashish M. Kamat, James M. McKiernan, Raj S. Pruthi, Chad Ritch, Gary D. Steinberg, Robert S. Svatek, Ellen C. Zwarthoff

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

CONTEXT: Urine-based tumor markers are not routinely used in the diagnosis and surveillance of bladder cancer. The main limitation of urinary markers has been a lack of clarity regarding clinical benefit. OBJECTIVE: To review the indications for urinary marker use, barriers to marker utilization, and clinical trial designs for markers available for detection (hematuria populations) and surveillance (bladder cancer populations). The study aim was to facilitate an optimal trial design that could change clinical practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A PubMed search was conducted on February 17, 2018, using the MeSH search terms "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] AND "Biomarkers" [Mesh] AND "Urine" [Mesh] yielded 127 articles, of which only two also fulfilled the search term "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type]. Neither of these two articles examined clinical outcomes for patients but rather focused on the performance characteristics of the urinary marker. For the search terms "Hematuria" [Mesh] AND "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type] AND "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] yielded 12 articles, none of which used randomization with the outcome of interest being a clinical endpoint. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Several potential designs for urinary marker trials were developed for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. A marker-based approach compared to usual care for evaluation of hematuria in a primary care setting could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy in patients with low risk and expedite care in patients with higher risk. For bladder cancer surveillance, marker-based approaches could reduce cystoscopy for patients with low-grade disease and potentially improve detection for patients with high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary markers are not currently routinely used owing to the absence of level 1 evidence supporting incorporation of urinary markers into protocols for detection or surveillance of bladder cancer. This review provides practical designs for studies that could demonstrate superiority of marker-based approaches over current clinical care. The sample sizes required for these studies are no greater than many of those accrued for previous urinary marker studies, but the proposed trial concepts require planning and a willingness to risk failure of the marker to demonstrate the desired benefits. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we discuss current limitations in the use of urinary markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. We identify potential studies that could demonstrate a clinical benefit of the use of markers in improving detection of bladder cancer by reducing evaluation of patients unlikely to have cancer or expediting identification of cancer. For surveillance, a marker trial could improve identification of bladder cancer or reduce cystoscopy in patients with low risk.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)223-230
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean urology oncology
Volume1
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Cystoscopy
Hematuria
Publications
Randomized Controlled Trials
Urine
Population Surveillance
Tumor Biomarkers
Random Allocation
PubMed
Sample Size
Neoplasms
Primary Health Care
Patient Care
Biomarkers
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Bladder cancer
  • Detection
  • Surveillance
  • Urinary markers

Cite this

Lotan, Y., Black, P. C., Caba, L., Chang, S. S., Cookson, M. S., Daneshmand, S., ... Zwarthoff, E. C. (2018). Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer: A Collaborative Review. European urology oncology, 1(3), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.010

Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer : A Collaborative Review. / Lotan, Yair; Black, Peter C.; Caba, Laura; Chang, Sam S.; Cookson, Michael S.; Daneshmand, Siamak; Kamat, Ashish M.; McKiernan, James M.; Pruthi, Raj S.; Ritch, Chad; Steinberg, Gary D.; Svatek, Robert S.; Zwarthoff, Ellen C.

In: European urology oncology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 01.08.2018, p. 223-230.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Lotan, Y, Black, PC, Caba, L, Chang, SS, Cookson, MS, Daneshmand, S, Kamat, AM, McKiernan, JM, Pruthi, RS, Ritch, C, Steinberg, GD, Svatek, RS & Zwarthoff, EC 2018, 'Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer: A Collaborative Review', European urology oncology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.010
Lotan, Yair ; Black, Peter C. ; Caba, Laura ; Chang, Sam S. ; Cookson, Michael S. ; Daneshmand, Siamak ; Kamat, Ashish M. ; McKiernan, James M. ; Pruthi, Raj S. ; Ritch, Chad ; Steinberg, Gary D. ; Svatek, Robert S. ; Zwarthoff, Ellen C. / Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer : A Collaborative Review. In: European urology oncology. 2018 ; Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 223-230.
@article{0072ca27ad7f4d21a7c46ac2062bca13,
title = "Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer: A Collaborative Review",
abstract = "CONTEXT: Urine-based tumor markers are not routinely used in the diagnosis and surveillance of bladder cancer. The main limitation of urinary markers has been a lack of clarity regarding clinical benefit. OBJECTIVE: To review the indications for urinary marker use, barriers to marker utilization, and clinical trial designs for markers available for detection (hematuria populations) and surveillance (bladder cancer populations). The study aim was to facilitate an optimal trial design that could change clinical practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A PubMed search was conducted on February 17, 2018, using the MeSH search terms {"}Urinary Bladder Neoplasms{"} [Mesh] AND {"}Biomarkers{"} [Mesh] AND {"}Urine{"} [Mesh] yielded 127 articles, of which only two also fulfilled the search term {"}Randomized Controlled Trial{"} [Publication Type]. Neither of these two articles examined clinical outcomes for patients but rather focused on the performance characteristics of the urinary marker. For the search terms {"}Hematuria{"} [Mesh] AND {"}Randomized Controlled Trial{"} [Publication Type] AND {"}Urinary Bladder Neoplasms{"} [Mesh] yielded 12 articles, none of which used randomization with the outcome of interest being a clinical endpoint. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Several potential designs for urinary marker trials were developed for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. A marker-based approach compared to usual care for evaluation of hematuria in a primary care setting could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy in patients with low risk and expedite care in patients with higher risk. For bladder cancer surveillance, marker-based approaches could reduce cystoscopy for patients with low-grade disease and potentially improve detection for patients with high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary markers are not currently routinely used owing to the absence of level 1 evidence supporting incorporation of urinary markers into protocols for detection or surveillance of bladder cancer. This review provides practical designs for studies that could demonstrate superiority of marker-based approaches over current clinical care. The sample sizes required for these studies are no greater than many of those accrued for previous urinary marker studies, but the proposed trial concepts require planning and a willingness to risk failure of the marker to demonstrate the desired benefits. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we discuss current limitations in the use of urinary markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. We identify potential studies that could demonstrate a clinical benefit of the use of markers in improving detection of bladder cancer by reducing evaluation of patients unlikely to have cancer or expediting identification of cancer. For surveillance, a marker trial could improve identification of bladder cancer or reduce cystoscopy in patients with low risk.",
keywords = "Bladder cancer, Detection, Surveillance, Urinary markers",
author = "Yair Lotan and Black, {Peter C.} and Laura Caba and Chang, {Sam S.} and Cookson, {Michael S.} and Siamak Daneshmand and Kamat, {Ashish M.} and McKiernan, {James M.} and Pruthi, {Raj S.} and Chad Ritch and Steinberg, {Gary D.} and Svatek, {Robert S.} and Zwarthoff, {Ellen C.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "223--230",
journal = "European urology oncology",
issn = "2588-9311",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal Trial Design for Studying Urinary Markers in Bladder Cancer

T2 - A Collaborative Review

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Black, Peter C.

AU - Caba, Laura

AU - Chang, Sam S.

AU - Cookson, Michael S.

AU - Daneshmand, Siamak

AU - Kamat, Ashish M.

AU - McKiernan, James M.

AU - Pruthi, Raj S.

AU - Ritch, Chad

AU - Steinberg, Gary D.

AU - Svatek, Robert S.

AU - Zwarthoff, Ellen C.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - CONTEXT: Urine-based tumor markers are not routinely used in the diagnosis and surveillance of bladder cancer. The main limitation of urinary markers has been a lack of clarity regarding clinical benefit. OBJECTIVE: To review the indications for urinary marker use, barriers to marker utilization, and clinical trial designs for markers available for detection (hematuria populations) and surveillance (bladder cancer populations). The study aim was to facilitate an optimal trial design that could change clinical practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A PubMed search was conducted on February 17, 2018, using the MeSH search terms "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] AND "Biomarkers" [Mesh] AND "Urine" [Mesh] yielded 127 articles, of which only two also fulfilled the search term "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type]. Neither of these two articles examined clinical outcomes for patients but rather focused on the performance characteristics of the urinary marker. For the search terms "Hematuria" [Mesh] AND "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type] AND "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] yielded 12 articles, none of which used randomization with the outcome of interest being a clinical endpoint. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Several potential designs for urinary marker trials were developed for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. A marker-based approach compared to usual care for evaluation of hematuria in a primary care setting could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy in patients with low risk and expedite care in patients with higher risk. For bladder cancer surveillance, marker-based approaches could reduce cystoscopy for patients with low-grade disease and potentially improve detection for patients with high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary markers are not currently routinely used owing to the absence of level 1 evidence supporting incorporation of urinary markers into protocols for detection or surveillance of bladder cancer. This review provides practical designs for studies that could demonstrate superiority of marker-based approaches over current clinical care. The sample sizes required for these studies are no greater than many of those accrued for previous urinary marker studies, but the proposed trial concepts require planning and a willingness to risk failure of the marker to demonstrate the desired benefits. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we discuss current limitations in the use of urinary markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. We identify potential studies that could demonstrate a clinical benefit of the use of markers in improving detection of bladder cancer by reducing evaluation of patients unlikely to have cancer or expediting identification of cancer. For surveillance, a marker trial could improve identification of bladder cancer or reduce cystoscopy in patients with low risk.

AB - CONTEXT: Urine-based tumor markers are not routinely used in the diagnosis and surveillance of bladder cancer. The main limitation of urinary markers has been a lack of clarity regarding clinical benefit. OBJECTIVE: To review the indications for urinary marker use, barriers to marker utilization, and clinical trial designs for markers available for detection (hematuria populations) and surveillance (bladder cancer populations). The study aim was to facilitate an optimal trial design that could change clinical practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A PubMed search was conducted on February 17, 2018, using the MeSH search terms "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] AND "Biomarkers" [Mesh] AND "Urine" [Mesh] yielded 127 articles, of which only two also fulfilled the search term "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type]. Neither of these two articles examined clinical outcomes for patients but rather focused on the performance characteristics of the urinary marker. For the search terms "Hematuria" [Mesh] AND "Randomized Controlled Trial" [Publication Type] AND "Urinary Bladder Neoplasms" [Mesh] yielded 12 articles, none of which used randomization with the outcome of interest being a clinical endpoint. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Several potential designs for urinary marker trials were developed for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. A marker-based approach compared to usual care for evaluation of hematuria in a primary care setting could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy in patients with low risk and expedite care in patients with higher risk. For bladder cancer surveillance, marker-based approaches could reduce cystoscopy for patients with low-grade disease and potentially improve detection for patients with high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary markers are not currently routinely used owing to the absence of level 1 evidence supporting incorporation of urinary markers into protocols for detection or surveillance of bladder cancer. This review provides practical designs for studies that could demonstrate superiority of marker-based approaches over current clinical care. The sample sizes required for these studies are no greater than many of those accrued for previous urinary marker studies, but the proposed trial concepts require planning and a willingness to risk failure of the marker to demonstrate the desired benefits. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we discuss current limitations in the use of urinary markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. We identify potential studies that could demonstrate a clinical benefit of the use of markers in improving detection of bladder cancer by reducing evaluation of patients unlikely to have cancer or expediting identification of cancer. For surveillance, a marker trial could improve identification of bladder cancer or reduce cystoscopy in patients with low risk.

KW - Bladder cancer

KW - Detection

KW - Surveillance

KW - Urinary markers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057067416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057067416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.010

DO - 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.010

M3 - Review article

VL - 1

SP - 223

EP - 230

JO - European urology oncology

JF - European urology oncology

SN - 2588-9311

IS - 3

ER -