| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;2. University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO;3. Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;4. Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MA;5. Department of Urology, HELIOS Hospital, Bad Saarow, Germany;6. Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH;7. Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;8. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden;9. Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden;10. Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy;11. Division of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;12. Department of Urology, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany;13. Lucio Lascaray Research Center, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain;14. Department of Urology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen and Urologie24, Nuremberg, Germany;15. Department of Urology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany;p. Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX |
| Abstract: | RationaleSeveral guidelines exist that address treatment of patients with nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, most only briefly mention follow-up strategies for patients and hence the treating physician is often left to infer on what the preferred follow-up schema would be for an individual patient. Herein, we aim to synthesize recommendations for follow-up of patients with MIBC for easy reference.MethodsA multidisciplinary MIBC expert panel from the International Bladder Cancer Network was assembled to critically assess currently available major guidelines on surveillance of MIBC patients. Recommendations for follow-up were extracted and critically evaluated. Important considerations for guideline assessment included both aspects of oncological and functional follow-up—frequency of visits, the use of different imaging modalities, the role of cytology and molecular markers, and the duration of follow-up.OutcomeAn International Bladder Cancer Network expert consensus recommendation was constructed for the follow-up of patients with MIBC based on the currently available evidence-based data. |
