Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T20:41:17.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Clinical follow-up of bladder cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2009

By
Alan Thompson  and
Sarb Sandhu
Edited by
David MacVicar
David MacVicar
Affiliation:
Royal Marsden Hospital
Get access

Summary

Superficial bladder cancer

Cystoscopic follow-up

There is no doubt that cystoscopy remains the gold standard of follow-up for patients who have undergone a transurethral resection (TUR) of a superficial bladder cancer. The majority will undergo a flexible cystoscopy, which obviates the need for a general or spinal anesthetic and which is very well tolerated. A flexible cystoscopy allows the regular inspection of the urethra and the whole bladder with a low morbidity and low cost. With modern videocystoscopes and experience, even very small recurrences can be readily detected. The interpretation of flat mucosal lesions is, however, difficult.

The first check cystoscopy is performed three months following the initial TUR apart from in those cases where there is a question over the grade (G2 or G3) or when there is uncertainity as to the depth of invasion of the tumor. In such cases, an early repeat resection or biopsy is made at the site of the initial tumor (4–6 weeks) [1]. However, although some doubt that the repeat early TUR has any effect on the subsequent outcome of these cases, it has been shown to reduce recurrences and improve prognosis. Indeed, there is a 10% chance that a G3TaT1 tumor has been understaged and is therefore a muscle invasive tumor [1–3]. The treatment of muscle invasive bladder tumors is completely different to that of superficial bladder tumors (see Chapter 6).

There are two main questions regarding the follow-up of patients after treatment for superficial bladder cancer. These are

  1. At what sort of frequency should follow-up occur?

  2. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Carcinoma of the Bladder , pp. 137 - 146
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Schwaibold, H E, Sivalingam, S, May, F, Hartung, R.The value of a second transurethral resection for T1 bladder cancer. BJU Int 2006; 97: 1199–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miladi, M, Peyromaure, M, Zerbib, Met al. The value of a second transurethral resection in evaluating patients with bladder tumours. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 241–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakse, G, Algaba, F, Malmstrom, P U, Oosterlinck, W.A second-look TUR in T1 transitional cell carcinoma: why? Eur Urol 2004; 45: 539–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parmar, M K, Freedman, L S, Hargreave, T B, Tolley, D A.Prognostic factors for recurrence and follow-up policies in the treatment of superficial bladder cancer: report from the British Medical Research Council Subgroup on Superfical Bladder Cancer (Urological Cancer Working Party). J Urol 1989; 142: 284–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurth, K H, Denis, L, Bouffioux, Cet al. Factors affecting recurrence and progression in superficial bladder tumours. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1840–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, J M, West, A B, Butler, M Ret al. Superficial bladder tumours (stage pTa, grades 1 and 2): the importance of recurrence pattern following initial resection. J Urol 1986; 135: 920–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oosterlinck, W, Meijden, A, Sylvester, Ret al. Guidelines on TaT1 (non-muscle invasive) Bladder Cancer (update). European Association of Urology Guidelines; March 2006. ISBN: 90-70244-37-3 (http://www.uroweb.org/nc/professional-resources/guidelines/online)
Morris, S B, Gordon, E M, Shearer, R J, Woodhouse, C R.Superficial bladder cancer: for how long should a tumour-free patient have check cystoscopies?Br J Urol 1995; 75: 193–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R A, Campbell, E W, Kramer, H Cet al. Late invasive recurrence despite long-term surveillance for superficial bladder cancer. J Urol 1993; 149: 1010–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmang, S, Hedelin, H, Anderstrom, C, Johansson, S L.The relationship among multiple recurrences, progression and prognosis of patients with stages Ta and T1 transitional cell cancer of the bladder followed for at least 20 years. J Urol 1995; 153: 1823–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, L H, Genster, H G.Prolonging follow-up intervals for non-invasive bladder tumours: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1995; 172: 33–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Tsili, ACh, Tsampoulas, C, Chatziparaskevas, Net al. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy for the detection of urinary bladder neoplasms. Eur Urol 2004; 46: 579–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badalament, R A, Hermansen, D K, Kimmel, Met al. The sensitivity of bladder wash flow cytometry, bladder wash cytology, and voided cytology in the detection of bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 60: 1423–7.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badalament, R A, Kimmel, M, Gay, Het al. The sensitivity of flow cytometry compared with conventional cytology in the detection of superficial bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 59: 2078–85.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiener, H G, Mian, C, Haitel, Aet al. Can urine bound diagnostic tests replace cystoscopy in the management of bladder cancer?J Urol 1998; 159: 1876–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golijanin, D, Sherman, Y, Shapiro, A, Pode, D.Detection of bladder tumours by immunostaining of the Lewis X antigen in cells from voided urine. Urology 1995; 46: 173–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, K, Sugino, T, Tahara, Het al. Telomerase activity in bladder carcinoma and its implication for noninvasive diagnosis by detection of exfoliated cancer cells in urine. Cancer 1997; 79: 362–9.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmang, S, Hedelin, H, Anderstrom, Cet al. Long-term follow-up of a bladder carcinoma cohort: routine follow-up urography is not necessary. J Urol 1998; 160: 45–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herr, H W.Tumour progression and survival in patients with T1G3 bladder tumours: 15-year outcome. Br J Urol 1997; 80: 762–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, E B, Eure, G R, Schellhammer, P F.Upper tract transitional cell carcinoma following treatment of superficial bladder cancer with BCG. Urology 1993; 42: 26–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sengelov, L, Nielsen, O S, Kamby, C, der Maase, H.Platinum analogue combination chemotherapy: cisplatin, carboplatin, and methotrexate in patients with metastatic urothelial tract tumors. A phase II trial with evaluation of prognostic factors. Cancer 1995; 76: 1797–803.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghoneim, M A, el-Mekresh, M M, el-Baz, M Aet al. Radical cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder: critical evaluation of the results in 1,026 cases. J Urol 1997; 158: 393–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, D G, Lieskovsky, G.Contemporary cystectomy with pelvic node dissection compared to preoperative radiation therapy plus cystectomy in management of invasive bladder cancer. J Urol 1984; 131: 1069–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beahrs, J R, Fleming, T R, Zincke, H.Risk of local urethral recurrence after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 1984; 131: 264–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stöckle, M, Gökcebay, E, Riedmiller, H, Hohenfellner, R.Urethral tumor recurrences after radical cystoprostatectomy: the case for primary cystoprostatourethrectomy?J Urol 1990; 143: 41–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darson, M F, Blute, M B, Barrett, D M.Continent orthotopic urinary diversion in female patients. American Urological Association Update Series 2000; 19: 257–64.Google Scholar
Skinner, D G, Stein, J P, Lieskovsky, Get al. 25-year experience in the management of invasive bladder cancer by radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 1998; 33(suppl 4): 25–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balaji, K C, McGuire, M, Grotas, Jet al. Upper tract recurrences following radical cystectomy: an analysis of prognostic factors, recurrence pattern and stage at presentation. J Urol 1999; 162: 1603–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, J W, Grabstald, H, Whitmore, W F.Complications of ureteroileal conduit with radical cystectomy: review of 336 cases. J Urol 1980; 124: 797–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, M O, McDougal, W S.The pathophysiology of hypercloremic metabolic acidosis after urinary diversion through intestinal segments. Surgery 1985; 98: 561–70.Google Scholar
Nurse, D E, Mundy, A R.Metabolic complication of cystoplasty. Br J Urol 1989; 63: 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougal, W S, Koch, M O, Shands, C3rd, Price R R. Bony demineralization following urinary intestinal diversion. J Urol 1988; 140: 853–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D M.Uretero-ileostomy. Br J Urol 1970; 42: 529–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitmore, W F3rd, Gittes R F. Reconstruction of the urinary tract by cecal and ileocecal cystoplasty: review of a 15-year experience. J Urol 1983; 129: 494–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, A W, Hendren, W H.Ileal conduits in children at the Massachusetts General Hospital from 1955 to 1970. J Urol 1976; 115: 591–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elder, D D, Moisey, C U, Rees, R W.A long-term follow-up of the colonic conduit operation in children. Br J Urol 1979; 51: 462–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terai, A, Ueda, T, Kakehi, Yet al. Urinary calculi as a later complication of the Indiana continent urinary diversion: comparison with the Kock pouch procedure. J Urol 1996; 155: 66–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T G, Moreno, J G, Weinberg, A, Ahlering, T E.Late complications of the modified Indiana pouch. J Urol 1994; 151: 331–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schipper, H, Decter, A.Carcinoma of the colon arising at ureteral implant sites despite early external diversion: pathogenetic and clinical implications. Cancer 1981; 47: 2062–5.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M, Macrae, F A, Williams, C B.Neoplasia and ureterosigmoidostomy: a colonoscopy survey. Br J Surg 1982; 69: 414–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×