PMID- 21426474 OWN - NLM STAT- MEDLINE DCOM- 20111108 LR - 20220316 IS - 1464-410X (Electronic) IS - 1464-4096 (Linking) VI - 108 IP - 7 DP - 2011 Oct TI - Prospective trial to identify optimal bladder cancer surveillance protocol: reducing costs while maximizing sensitivity. PG - 1119-23 LID - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10026.x [doi] AB - OBJECTIVE: * To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cytological evaluation, NMP22 BladderChek(R), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) UroVysion(R) in addition to cystoscopy in patients with a history of bladder cancer undergoing surveillance for recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: * In all, 200 consecutive patients with a history of bladder cancer not invading the muscle were prospectively enrolled at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. * Five surveillance strategies were compared: (i) cystoscopy alone; (ii) cystoscopy and NMP22; (iii) cystoscopy and FISH; (iv) cystoscopy and cytology; and (v) cystoscopy and positive NMP22 confirmed by positive FISH. * The cost per cancer detected was calculated. * For patients with an initial positive test and negative cystoscopy, tumour detected at first follow-up was assumed to be too small to be visualized at the initial assessment and the biomarker was credited with early detection. RESULTS: * Cancer was detected in 13 patients at study entry. * Detection rates for the five surveillance strategies were: (i) 52%, (ii) 56%, (iii) 72%, (iv) 60%, and (v) 56%. * The costs per tumour detected (at the time of initial marker analysis) were (i) $7692; (ii) $12,000; (iii) $26,462; (iv) $11,846; and (v) $10,292. * When early detection of biomarkers was factored in, the CPTD became: (i) $7692; (ii) $11,143; (iii) $19,111; (iv) $10,267; and (v) $9557. * There were 12 new cancers detected at first follow-up (median time, 4.1 months). None of the tumours detected by biomarkers but not by cystoscopy were invasive. CONCLUSIONS: * Cystoscopy alone remains the most cost-effective strategy to detect recurrence of bladder cancer not invading the muscle. * The addition of urinary markers adds to cost, without improved detection of invasive disease. CI - (c) 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL (c) 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL. FAU - Kamat, Ashish M AU - Kamat AM AD - Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. akamat@mdanderson.org FAU - Karam, Jose A AU - Karam JA FAU - Grossman, H Barton AU - Grossman HB FAU - Kader, A Karim AU - Kader AK FAU - Munsell, Mark AU - Munsell M FAU - Dinney, Colin P AU - Dinney CP LA - eng GR - P50-CA91846-01/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural DEP - 20110322 PL - England TA - BJU Int JT - BJU international JID - 100886721 SB - IM CIN - BJU Int. 2011 Oct;108(7):1123-4. PMID: 21545386 MH - Adult MH - Aged MH - Aged, 80 and over MH - Clinical Protocols MH - Cost-Benefit Analysis MH - Female MH - Humans MH - Male MH - Middle Aged MH - Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/*diagnosis/*economics MH - Population Surveillance MH - Prospective Studies MH - Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/*diagnosis/*economics MH - Young Adult EDAT- 2011/03/24 06:00 MHDA- 2011/11/09 06:00 CRDT- 2011/03/24 06:00 PHST- 2011/03/24 06:00 [entrez] PHST- 2011/03/24 06:00 [pubmed] PHST- 2011/11/09 06:00 [medline] AID - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10026.x [doi] PST - ppublish SO - BJU Int. 2011 Oct;108(7):1119-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10026.x. Epub 2011 Mar 22.