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
. 2024 Sep 1;16(17):3056.
doi: 10.3390/cancers16173056.

Contemporary Molecular Markers for Predicting Systemic Treatment Response in Urothelial Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review

Affiliations
Review

Contemporary Molecular Markers for Predicting Systemic Treatment Response in Urothelial Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review

George Dimitrov et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

The search for dependable molecular biomarkers to enhance routine clinical practice is a compelling challenge across all oncology fields. Urothelial bladder carcinoma, known for its significant heterogeneity, presents difficulties in predicting responses to systemic therapies and outcomes post-radical cystectomy. Recent advancements in molecular cancer biology offer promising avenues to understand the disease's biology and identify emerging predictive biomarkers. Stratifying patients based on their recurrence risk post-curative treatment or predicting the efficacy of conventional and targeted therapies could catalyze personalized treatment selection and disease surveillance. Despite progress, reliable molecular biomarkers to forecast responses to systemic agents, in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or palliative treatment settings, are still lacking, underscoring an urgent unmet need. This review aims to delve into the utilization of current and emerging molecular signatures across various stages of urothelial bladder carcinoma to predict responses to systemic therapy.

Keywords: biomarkers; precision oncology; response predictors; urothelial carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study selection process.

Similar articles

References

    1. Siegel R.L., Giaquinto A.N., Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024;74:12–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zehnder P., Studer U.E., Skinner E.C., Thalmann G.N., Miranda G., Roth B., Cai J., Birkhäuser F.D., Mitra A.P., Burkhard F.C., et al. Unaltered Oncological Outcomes of Radical Cystectomy with Extended Lymphadenectomy over Three Decades. BJU Int. 2013;112:E51–E58. doi: 10.1111/bju.12215. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Compérat E., Amin M.B., Cathomas R., Choudhury A., De Santis M., Kamat A., Stenzl A., Thoeny H.C., Witjes J.A. Current Best Practice for Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review of Diagnostics and Treatments. Lancet. 2022;400:1712–1721. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01188-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mitra A.P., Jordà M., Cote R.J. Pathological Possibilities and Pitfalls in Detecting Aggressive Bladder Cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2012;22:397–404. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328356ade6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lamm D., Persad R., Brausi M., Buckley R., Witjes J.A., Palou J., Böhle A., Kamat A.M., Colombel M., Soloway M. Defining Progression in Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: It Is Time for a New, Standard Definition. J. Urol. 2014;191:20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.102. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources