FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016384772> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016384772 endingPage "1685" @default.
• W2016384772 startingPage "1678" @default.
• W2016384772 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 May 2010Marker Lesion Experiments in Bladder Cancer—What Have We Learned?is accompanied byAre We Making Significant Progress in the Diagnosis and Management of Bladder Cancer? Ofer N. Gofrit, Kevin C. Zorn, Sergey Shikanov, and Gary D. Steinberg Ofer N. GofritOfer N. Gofrit Department of Urology, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel More articles by this author , Kevin C. ZornKevin C. Zorn Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author , Sergey ShikanovSergey Shikanov Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author , and Gary D. SteinbergGary D. Steinberg Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.104AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: In marker lesion experiments a single bladder tumor is deliberately left unresected for later ablation by intravesical instillation of a novel agent. While the benefits are clear, eg the opportunity to examine the effect of therapy on measurable disease, the safety and medical ethics of these experiments are less obvious. We review the goals, inclusion criteria, definition of success, agents used, effectiveness, safety and ethics of marker lesion studies, and suggest a framework for future experiments. Materials and Methods: Published bladder cancer studies using the marker lesion concept were identified with a MEDLINE® search through March 2009. Results: A total of 23 well documented marker lesion studies were identified involving more than 1,200 patients. Most agents studied were cytotoxins (mitomycin-C, epirubicin, gemcitabine, valrubicin, apaziquone) or immune response modifiers (bacillus Calmette-Guerin, tumor necrosis factor-α, interferon-α, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor). The highest complete response rate in intermediate risk patients (67%) was attained with apaziquone. Patients who achieved a complete response with this agent also had a prophylactic benefit with a 2-year recurrence-free rate of 45.2% compared to 26.7% in those who did not achieve a complete response. The complete response rate in bacillus Calmette-Guerin trials ranged from 32% to 61%. Marker lesion experiments were deemed safe with progression to T2 disease in only 7 patients (0.6%) and only when high risk patients were selected. Conclusions: Marker lesion studies are most appropriate for the evaluation of novel anticancer therapeutics. Only patients with multiple recurrent, noninvasive, low grade tumors (intermediate risk) should be recruited. Primary end points should be complete response and recurrence rates after 2 to 3 years. References 1 : The use of intravesical thio-tepa in the management of non-invasive carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol1981; 125: 307. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Intravesical thiotepa versus mitomycin C in patients with Ta, T1 and TIS transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a phase III prospective randomized study. J Urol1988; 140: 1390. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Intravesical chemoresection with 4′-epi-doxorubicin in patients with superficial bladder tumors. Eur Urol1988; 14: 207. Google Scholar 4 : A multi-centre phase two study of intravesical epirubicin in the treatment of superficial bladder tumour. Eur Urol1990; 17: 20. Google Scholar 5 : Intravesical therapy of superficial bladder transitional cell carcinoma with tumor necrosis factor-alpha: preliminary report of a phase I-II study. Eur Urol1992; 22: 112. Google Scholar 6 : Marker tumour response to Evans and Pasteur bacille Calmette-Guérin in multiple recurrent pTa/pT1 bladder tumours: report from the Medical Research Council Subgroup on Superficial Bladder Cancer (Urological Cancer Working Party). Br J Urol1994; 73: 639. Google Scholar 7 : Superficial bladder cancer: the response of a marker tumour to a single intravesical instillation of epirubicin. Br J Urol1994; 74: 195. Google Scholar 8 : Marker tumour responses to the sequential combination of intravesical therapy with mitomycin-C and BCG-RIVM in multiple superficial bladder tumours: Report from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment on Cancer-Genitourinary Group (EORTC 30897). Eur Urol1996; 29: 199. Google Scholar 9 : Chemoresection in Ta-T1 bladder cancer: Members of the EORTC Genito-Urinary Group. Eur Urol1996; 29: 385. Google Scholar 10 : Intravesical electromotive administration of drugs for treatment of superficial bladder cancer: a comparative phase II study. Urology1998; 51: 506. Google Scholar 11 : Intravesical interleukin-2 in T1 papillary bladder carcinoma: regression of marker lesion in 8 of 10 patients. J Urol1998; 159: 1183. Link, Google Scholar 12 : A new approach in the management of urothelial tumors using GM-CSF on marker lesions: an ultrastructural and immunohistochemical study on the macrophage population in bladder mucosa. J Interferon Cytokine Res1999; 19: 221. Google Scholar 13 : The ablative effect of quarter dose bacillus Calmette-Guerin on a papillary marker lesion of the bladder. J Urol2001; 165: 401. Link, Google Scholar 14 : The use of valrubicin for the chemoresection of superficial bladder cancer—a marker lesion study. Eur Urol2001; 39: 643. Google Scholar 15 : A randomized comparative dose-ranging study of interferon-alpha and mitomycin-C as an internal control in primary or recurrent superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int2002; 89: 681. Google Scholar 16 : Phase II study to investigate the ablative efficacy of intravesical administration of gemcitabine in intermediate-risk superficial bladder cancer (SBC). Eur Urol2004; 46: 339. Google Scholar 17 : Randomized phase II marker lesion study evaluating effect of scheduling on response to intravesical gemcitabine in recurrent stage Ta urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder. Urology2005; 66: 527. Google Scholar 18 : Gemcitabine in intravesical treatment of Ta-T1 transitional cell carcinoma of bladder: phase I-II study on marker lesions. Urology2005; 65: 65. Google Scholar 19 : Phase II marker lesion study with intravesical instillation of apaziquone for superficial bladder cancer: toxicity and marker response. J Urol2006; 176: 1349. Google Scholar 20 : Phase I/II pilot study of intravesical apaziquone (EO9) for superficial bladder cancer. J Urol2006; 176: 1344. Link, Google Scholar 21 : Short-schedule intravesical gemcitabine with ablative intent in recurrent Ta-T1, G1-G2, low- or intermediate-risk, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol2007; 51: 956. Google Scholar 22 : Phase I/II marker lesion study of intravesical BC-819 DNA plasmid in H19 over expressing superficial bladder cancer refractory to bacillus Calmette-Guerin. J Urol2008; 180: 2379. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Two-year follow-up of the phase II marker lesion study of intravesical apaziquone for patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. World J Urol2009; 27: 337. Google Scholar 24 : Phase II trials in Ta, T1 bladder cancer: The marker tumour concept. Br J Urol1996; 77: 634. Google Scholar 25 : Watchful waiting policy in recurrent Ta G1 bladder tumor. Eur Urol2006; 49: 303. Google Scholar 26 : Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1989; 10: 1. Google Scholar 27 : Frequency of positive biopsies after visual disappearance of superficial bladder cancer marker lesions. Eur Urol2001; 40: 515. Google Scholar 28 : The use of the marker tumor concept in Ta, T1 bladder cancer: is it justified?. Urol Oncol2002; 7: 31. Google Scholar 29 : Response of multiple recurrent TaT1 bladder cancer to intravesical apaziquone (EO9): comparative analysis of tumor recurrence rates. Urology2009; 73: 1083. Google Scholar 30 : Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol2006; 49: 466. Google Scholar © 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byRose A, El-Leithy T, Dorp F, Zakaria A, Eisenhardt A, Tschirdewahn S and Rübben H (2018) Mistletoe Plant Extract in Patients with Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results of a Phase Ib/IIa Single Group Dose Escalation StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 4, (939-943), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.Gofrit O, Benjamin S, Halachmi S, Leibovitch I, Dotan Z, Lamm D, Ehrlich N, Yutkin V, Ben-Am M and Hochberg A (2018) DNA Based Therapy with Diphtheria Toxin-A BC-819: A Phase 2b Marker Lesion Trial in Patients with Intermediate Risk Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 6, (1697-1702), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2014.Mostafid H, Kirby R, Fitzpatrick J and Bryan R (2018) The Safe and Economical Care of Ta Bladder CancerUrology Practice, VOL. 1, NO. 4, (176-183), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2014.Parisse T, Reines K, Basak R, Mueller D, Teal R, Vu M, Carda-Auten J, Stein K, Giannone K, Lipman R and Smith A (2022) Patient and Provider Perception of Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor vs Chemoablation for Nonmuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer TreatmentJournal of Urology, Related articlesJournal of Urology17 Mar 2010Are We Making Significant Progress in the Diagnosis and Management of Bladder Cancer? Volume 183Issue 5May 2010Page: 1678-1685 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordssafetyurinary bladder neoplasmspatient selectionethicsresearchantineoplastic agentsMetricsAuthor Information Ofer N. Gofrit Department of Urology, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel More articles by this author Kevin C. Zorn Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author Sergey Shikanov Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author Gary D. Steinberg Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2016384772 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016384772 creator A5014651604 @default.
• W2016384772 creator A5025973451 @default.
• W2016384772 creator A5031034737 @default.
• W2016384772 creator A5063581438 @default.
• W2016384772 date "2010-05-01" @default.
• W2016384772 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2016384772 title "Marker Lesion Experiments in Bladder Cancer—What Have We Learned?" @default.
• W2016384772 cites W148459091 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1530231068 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W158888375 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1968066628 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1980582829 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1980749976 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1990144050 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W1995572685 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2002045993 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2003811964 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2006596995 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2029409133 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2044110382 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2046282971 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2054076555 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2063611150 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2064952716 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2071015810 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2075118413 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2089541850 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2095493190 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2140477935 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2161699470 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2164053811 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2338759660 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2397591042 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2406734097 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W2428683748 @default.
• W2016384772 cites W3015054858 @default.
• W2016384772 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.104" @default.
• W2016384772 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20299042" @default.
• W2016384772 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2016384772 type Work @default.
• W2016384772 sameAs 2016384772 @default.
• W2016384772 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722012 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722014 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722015 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722016 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722017 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722019 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722020 @default.
• W2016384772 countsByYear W20163847722021 @default.
• W2016384772 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2016384772 hasAuthorship W2016384772A5014651604 @default.
• W2016384772 hasAuthorship W2016384772A5025973451 @default.
• W2016384772 hasAuthorship W2016384772A5031034737 @default.
• W2016384772 hasAuthorship W2016384772A5063581438 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C2780352672 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C2781156865 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C3020745361 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C121608353 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C126322002 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C142724271 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C2780352672 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C2781156865 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C3020745361 @default.
• W2016384772 hasConceptScore W2016384772C71924100 @default.
• W2016384772 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2016384772 hasLocation W20163847721 @default.
• W2016384772 hasLocation W20163847722 @default.
• W2016384772 hasOpenAccess W2016384772 @default.
• W2016384772 hasPrimaryLocation W20163847721 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W1979321249 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W2349096397 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W2415761310 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W2474195589 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W2951237577 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W3022262803 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W4304695001 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W1929462032 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W2118673085 @default.
• W2016384772 hasRelatedWork W3213056101 @default.
• W2016384772 hasVolume "183" @default.
• W2016384772 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2016384772 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2016384772 magId "2016384772" @default.
• W2016384772 workType "article" @default.