Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Jun;63(6):1049-58.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.062. Epub 2013 Jan 8.

Screening for bladder cancer: rationale, limitations, whom to target, and perspectives

Affiliations
Review

Screening for bladder cancer: rationale, limitations, whom to target, and perspectives

Stéphane Larré et al. Eur Urol. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

Context: Bladder cancer (BCa) is the fourth most common cancer in men. Survival from the disease has not improved in the last 25 yr. Population-based screening theoretically provides the best opportunity to improve the outcomes of aggressive BCa.

Objective: To review the current literature regarding the usefulness and feasibility of screening for bladder cancer.

Evidence acquisition: We conducted a nonsystematic review restricted to English using the keywords urinary bladder neoplasms, mass screening, mandatory testing, and early detection of cancer. We retrieved 184 articles and selected 22.

Evidence synthesis: There was no level 1 evidence (obtained from a randomised controlled trial [RCT]) addressing the impact of screening on BCa survival or tumour downstaging. No study assessed the diagnostic performance of urinary markers in the context of screening. Two case-control series suggested a benefit of screening on survival, and a third found a nonsignificant beneficial trend in favour of screening. Two studies suggested downstaging of BCa at diagnosis. Other reports concluded that most cancers detected with screening were of low grade and that current urinary testing cannot detect all tumours. Screening is likely to be of benefit in high-risk populations using cost-efficient high-performing urinary biomarkers. There was insufficient evidence to define an efficient screening protocol.

Conclusions: Although BCa screening is theoretically feasible in a high-risk population, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend it. This is due to insufficient data to define an efficient screening protocol with selection of an appropriate population and the lack of accurate and cost-effective urinary markers able to discriminate low-risk from high-risk cancers. Major improvements are needed in the evaluation of urinary biomarkers before evaluation in a RCT can be achieved.

PubMed Disclaimer