Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30903352›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2019

Patients choose certainty over burden in bladder cancer surveillance.

Frits H M van Osch, Duncan Nekeman, Neil K Aaronson, Lucinda J Billingham, Nicholas D James, K K Cheng, Richard T Bryan, Maurice P Zeegers

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Role of Novel Bladder Cancer Diagnostic and Surveillance Biomarkers-What Should a Urologist Really Know?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Frits H M van OschInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. f.vanosch@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Duncan NekemanDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lucinda J BillinghamCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nicholas D JamesInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
K K ChengDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard T BryanInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Maurice P ZeegersDepartment of Complex Genetics, Nutrition and Metabolism in Translational Research (NUTRIM), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the high risk of recurrence of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, all patients undergo regular cystoscopic surveillance for early detection. As cystoscopy is invasive, costly and increases the burden of the disease considerably, there is significant ongoing research and development into non-invasive urinary biomarker substitutes. This study aims to assess the level of sensitivity required before patients accept a new urinary biomarker.

methodsWe studied the preferences for a hypothetical diagnostic urinary biomarker and compared this to usual care (cystoscopy) at different levels of sensitivity among 437 patients with bladder cancer (354 men and 83 women) from the UK Bladder Cancer Prognosis Programme. A standard gamble approach was used to estimate the minimally acceptable sensitivity (MAS) of the new biomarker. Additionally, non-parametric statistical analyses were performed to investigate the association between surveillance preference and various patient characteristics.

resultsAlmost half of patients (183, 43%) would not replace cystoscopy with a urinary biomarker unless it was 100% sensitive. The median MAS was 99.9999%, and nearly 85% of patients demanded a sensitivity of at least 99% before preferring a urinary biomarker test over cystoscopy. These results were consistent across all patient characteristics and demographic categories.

conclusionsOur results indicate that patients demand urinary biomarkers as sensitive as cystoscopy before they would be willing to forego cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance.

Indexed as

CystoscopyPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesCost of IllnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPopulation SurveillanceSensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorNon-invasive biomarkersNon-muscle-invasive bladder cancerSensitivity and specificityStandard gamble

Identifiers

PMID30903352
PMCPMC6867982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.