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
Practice Guideline
. 2020 Feb;77(2):223-250.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035. Epub 2019 Nov 19.

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

J Alfred Witjes  1 Marek Babjuk  2 Joaquim Bellmunt  3 H Maxim Bruins  4 Theo M De Reijke  5 Maria De Santis  6 Silke Gillessen  7 Nicholas James  8 Steven Maclennan  9 Juan Palou  10 Tom Powles  11 Maria J Ribal  12 Shahrokh F Shariat  13 Theo Van Der Kwast  14 Evanguelos Xylinas  15 Neeraj Agarwal  16 Tom Arends  17 Aristotle Bamias  18 Alison Birtle  19 Peter C Black  20 Bernard H Bochner  21 Michel Bolla  22 Joost L Boormans  23 Alberto Bossi  24 Alberto Briganti  25 Iris Brummelhuis  4 Max Burger  26 Daniel Castellano  27 Richard Cathomas  28 Arturo Chiti  29 Ananya Choudhury  30 Eva Compérat  31 Simon Crabb  32 Stephane Culine  33 Berardino De Bari  34 Willem De Blok  35 Pieter J L De Visschere  36 Karel Decaestecker  37 Konstantinos Dimitropoulos  38 Jose L Dominguez-Escrig  39 Stefano Fanti  40 Valerie Fonteyne  41 Mark Frydenberg  42 Jurgen J Futterer  43 Georgios Gakis  44 Bogdan Geavlete  45 Paolo Gontero  46 Bernhard Grubmüller  47 Shaista Hafeez  48 Donna E Hansel  49 Arndt Hartmann  50 Dickon Hayne  51 Ann M Henry  52 Virginia Hernandez  53 Harry Herr  54 Ken Herrmann  55 Peter Hoskin  56 Jorge Huguet  10 Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa  57 Rob Jones  58 Ashish M Kamat  59 Vincent Khoo  60 Anne E Kiltie  61 Susanne Krege  62 Sylvain Ladoire  63 Pedro C Lara  64 Annemarie Leliveld  65 Estefania Linares-Espinós  66 Vibeke Løgager  67 Anja Lorch  68 Yohann Loriot  69 Richard Meijer  70 M Carmen Mir  39 Marco Moschini  71 Hugh Mostafid  72 Arndt-Christian Müller  73 Christoph R Müller  74 James N'Dow  75 Andrea Necchi  76 Yann Neuzillet  77 Jorg R Oddens  5 Jan Oldenburg  78 Susanne Osanto  79 Wim J G Oyen  80 Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo  81 Helle Pappot  82 Manish I Patel  83 Bradley R Pieters  84 Karin Plass  85 Mesut Remzi  47 Margitta Retz  86 Jonathan Richenberg  87 Michael Rink  88 Florian Roghmann  89 Jonathan E Rosenberg  90 Morgan Rouprêt  91 Olivier Rouvière  92 Carl Salembier  93 Antti Salminen  94 Paul Sargos  95 Shomik Sengupta  96 Amir Sherif  97 Robert J Smeenk  98 Anita Smits  4 Arnulf Stenzl  99 George N Thalmann  100 Bertrand Tombal  101 Baris Turkbey  102 Susanne Vahr Lauridsen  103 Riccardo Valdagni  104 Antoine G Van Der Heijden  4 Hein Van Poppel  105 Mihai D Vartolomei  106 Erik Veskimäe  107 Antoni Vilaseca  12 Franklin A Vives Rivera  108 Thomas Wiegel  109 Peter Wiklund  110 Andrew Williams  111 Richard Zigeuner  112 Alan Horwich  113
Affiliations
Free article
Practice Guideline

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

J Alfred Witjes et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Feb.
Free article

Erratum in

  • Corrigendum to 'EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees' [European Urology 77 (2020) 223-250].
    Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl… See abstract for full author list ➔ Witjes JA, et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Jul;78(1):e48-e50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.017. Epub 2020 May 21. Eur Urol. 2020. PMID: 32446863 No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.

Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Keywords: Bladder cancer; Consensus; Delphi; Diagnosis; Follow-up; Treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types