Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNg, Kenrick
dc.contributor.authorStenzl, Arnulf
dc.contributor.authorSharma, Anand
dc.contributor.authorVasdev, Nikhil
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-23T00:08:24Z
dc.date.available2020-09-23T00:08:24Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-09
dc.identifier.citationNg , K , Stenzl , A , Sharma , A & Vasdev , N 2020 , ' Urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer : A review of the current landscape and future directions ' , Urologic oncology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.016
dc.identifier.issn1078-1439
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 22498909
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 9f582425-63dd-497c-866a-3c090d8781e2
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85085874815
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/23149
dc.description© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This manuscript is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
dc.description.abstractThis narrative review aims to describe established and emerging urinary biomarkers in the diagnosis and surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). It provides a comprehensive account of classical, FDA-approved protein biomarkers and discuss their limitations. Further, we discuss the role that epigenetic, genetic and exosomal markers can play to enhance sensitivity and specificity of the available tests. BACKGROUND: The initial diagnosis and surveillance of BC involves a combination of cystoscopy, upper urinary tract imaging and urine cytology. Despite high specificity, cytology is limited by low sensitivity. There are currently six urinary assays approved by the FDA to enhance diagnosis and surveillance of BC. While these have improved diagnosis and surveillance when combined with cytology, these tests are still not sufficiently sensitive and false positives often occur in benign conditions which result in inflammation of the urinary tract. Advancements in laboratory techniques have produced significant advancements in epigenetic and genetic markers, as well as extracellular vesicles, with DNA- and RNA-based markers dominating the research in this area in recent years. METHODS: We identified relevant published data, using the PubMed/ Medline search engines as well as Google Scholar. We performed an online search using the terms ‘bladder cancer’, ‘NMIBC’ in combination with ‘urine biomarkers’ and limited articles in English published up to February 2020. This review consolidated on all available narrative and systematic reviews published in the five years in this field, while also reviewing the original data of each clinical trial or observational study which led to the development of the biomarkers. CONCLUSION: The development of laboratory techniques and understanding urine-based biomarkers in BC has fuelled the use of non-invasive liquid-based biomarkers to complement urine cytology. Nonetheless, none are sufficiently effective when used in isolation, and cytology remains the gold standard in many practices. Future efforts will be focused on using these markers in combination as a predictive signature, and moving on to validating them for use in everyday clinical practice.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofUrologic oncology
dc.titleUrinary biomarkers in bladder cancer : A review of the current landscape and future directionsen
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Health Services and Clinical Research
dc.contributor.institutionBasic and Clinical Science Unit
dc.contributor.institutionExtracellular Vesicle Research Unit
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2021-09-09
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.016
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record