The Experts below are selected from a list of 32832 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter Goebell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prognostic markers for Bladder cancer international consensus panel on Bladder Tumor markers
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Tomonori Habuchi, William M Murphy, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Michael Marberger, Michael J Droller, Barton H Grossman, Jack A Schalken, Bernd J Schmitzdrager, Peter GoebellAbstract:The International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers evaluated markers that have the ability to predict Tumor recurrence, progression, development of metastases, or response to therapy or patient survival. This article summarizes those findings. The panel mainly reviewed articles listed in PubMed on various prognostic indicators for Bladder cancer. Based on these studies, most of which were case-control retrospective studies, various prognostic indicators were classified into 6 groups: (1) microsatellite-associated markers, (2) proto-oncogenes/oncogenes, (3) Tumor suppressor genes, (4) cell cycle regulators, (5) angiogenesis-related factors, and (6) extracellular matrix adhesion molecules. The panel concluded that although certain markers, such as Ki-67 and p53, appear to be promising in predicting recurrence and progression of Bladder cancer, the data are still heterogeneous. The panel recommends that identifying definitive criteria for test positivity, a clearly defined patient population, standardization of techniques used to evaluate markers, and clearly specified endpoints and statistical methods will help to bring accurate independent prognostic indicators into the clinical management of patients with Bladder cancer.
-
Bladder Tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on Bladder Tumor markers.
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar, Tomonori Habuchi, H Barton Grossman, William M Murphy, Stefan H Hautmann, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Robert H Getzenberg, Peter Goebell, Bernd J Schmitz-drägerAbstract:This is the first of 2 articles that summarize the findings of the International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers. The objectives of our panel were to reach a consensus on the areas where markers are needed, to define the attributes of an ideal Tumor marker, and to identify which marker(s) would be suitable for diagnosis and/or surveillance of Bladder cancer. Our panel consisted of urologists and researchers from Europe, Asia, and the United States who reviewed original articles, reviews, and book chapters on individual Bladder Tumor markers published in the English language mainly using the PubMed search engine. Panel members also met during 3 international meetings to write recommendations regarding Bladder Tumor markers. The panel found that the most practical use of noninvasive tests is to monitor Bladder cancer recurrence, thereby reducing the number of surveillance cystoscopies performed each year. Markers also may be useful in the screening of high-risk individuals for early detection of Bladder cancer. However, more prospective studies are needed to strengthen this argument. Case-control and cohort studies show that several markers have a higher sensitivity to detect Bladder cancer. However, cytology is the superior marker in terms of specificity, although some markers in limited numbers of studies have shown specificity equivalent to that of cytology. Our panel believes that several Bladder Tumor markers are more accurate in detecting Bladder cancer than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is in detecting prostate cancer. However, Bladder Tumor markers are held to a higher standard than PSA. Therefore, use of Bladder Tumor markers in the management of patients with Bladder cancer will require the willingness of both urologists and clinicians to accept them.
Tomonori Habuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prognostic markers for Bladder cancer international consensus panel on Bladder Tumor markers
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Tomonori Habuchi, William M Murphy, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Michael Marberger, Michael J Droller, Barton H Grossman, Jack A Schalken, Bernd J Schmitzdrager, Peter GoebellAbstract:The International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers evaluated markers that have the ability to predict Tumor recurrence, progression, development of metastases, or response to therapy or patient survival. This article summarizes those findings. The panel mainly reviewed articles listed in PubMed on various prognostic indicators for Bladder cancer. Based on these studies, most of which were case-control retrospective studies, various prognostic indicators were classified into 6 groups: (1) microsatellite-associated markers, (2) proto-oncogenes/oncogenes, (3) Tumor suppressor genes, (4) cell cycle regulators, (5) angiogenesis-related factors, and (6) extracellular matrix adhesion molecules. The panel concluded that although certain markers, such as Ki-67 and p53, appear to be promising in predicting recurrence and progression of Bladder cancer, the data are still heterogeneous. The panel recommends that identifying definitive criteria for test positivity, a clearly defined patient population, standardization of techniques used to evaluate markers, and clearly specified endpoints and statistical methods will help to bring accurate independent prognostic indicators into the clinical management of patients with Bladder cancer.
-
Bladder Tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on Bladder Tumor markers.
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar, Tomonori Habuchi, H Barton Grossman, William M Murphy, Stefan H Hautmann, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Robert H Getzenberg, Peter Goebell, Bernd J Schmitz-drägerAbstract:This is the first of 2 articles that summarize the findings of the International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers. The objectives of our panel were to reach a consensus on the areas where markers are needed, to define the attributes of an ideal Tumor marker, and to identify which marker(s) would be suitable for diagnosis and/or surveillance of Bladder cancer. Our panel consisted of urologists and researchers from Europe, Asia, and the United States who reviewed original articles, reviews, and book chapters on individual Bladder Tumor markers published in the English language mainly using the PubMed search engine. Panel members also met during 3 international meetings to write recommendations regarding Bladder Tumor markers. The panel found that the most practical use of noninvasive tests is to monitor Bladder cancer recurrence, thereby reducing the number of surveillance cystoscopies performed each year. Markers also may be useful in the screening of high-risk individuals for early detection of Bladder cancer. However, more prospective studies are needed to strengthen this argument. Case-control and cohort studies show that several markers have a higher sensitivity to detect Bladder cancer. However, cytology is the superior marker in terms of specificity, although some markers in limited numbers of studies have shown specificity equivalent to that of cytology. Our panel believes that several Bladder Tumor markers are more accurate in detecting Bladder cancer than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is in detecting prostate cancer. However, Bladder Tumor markers are held to a higher standard than PSA. Therefore, use of Bladder Tumor markers in the management of patients with Bladder cancer will require the willingness of both urologists and clinicians to accept them.
Ofer Yossepowitch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
presence of detrusor muscle in Bladder Tumor specimens predictors and effect on outcome as a measure of resection quality
Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations, 2014Co-Authors: Ohad Shoshany, Roy Mano, David Margel, Jack Baniel, Ofer YossepowitchAbstract:Abstract Objectives To identify predictors of the absence of detrusor muscle in Bladder Tumor specimens and analyze its effect on clinical outcome as an indicator of resection quality. Methods The Bladder cancer database of a tertiary medical center was queried for patients who underwent complete transurethral resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT) between 2008 and 2009. Study end points were absence of detrusor muscle in the surgical specimen and its association with disease recurrence/progression. Results Detrusor muscle in the surgical specimen was found in 265 of the 332 study patients (79%). The likelihood of finding muscle increased with higher clinical stage (Odds Ratio [OR]-1.8), higher Tumor grade (OR-3), larger Tumor size (OR-3.2), multifocal disease (OR-1.7), and nonpapillary morphology (OR-2.3). History of Bladder cancer, surgeon's experience, and Tumor location in the Bladder had no effect. In the whole study population, neither Tumor recurrence nor disease progression was associated with absence of detrusor muscle. In patients with T1 Tumors, absence of detrusor muscle in the specimen was associated with higher early recurrence rate but not worse long-term outcome. Conclusions Absence of detrusor muscle in TURBT specimens is not determined by the technical difficulty of the procedure or surgical experience. Surgeons are more prone to obtain deep muscle in large, nonpapillary-appearing Tumors, likely reflecting efforts to attain accurate staging in these cases. The presence or absence of detrusor muscle may serve as a surrogate of resection quality in patients with T1 Tumors, but its general applicability to the overall population of patients undergoing TURBT remains questionable.
Bernd J Schmitz-dräger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bladder Tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on Bladder Tumor markers.
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar, Tomonori Habuchi, H Barton Grossman, William M Murphy, Stefan H Hautmann, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Robert H Getzenberg, Peter Goebell, Bernd J Schmitz-drägerAbstract:This is the first of 2 articles that summarize the findings of the International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers. The objectives of our panel were to reach a consensus on the areas where markers are needed, to define the attributes of an ideal Tumor marker, and to identify which marker(s) would be suitable for diagnosis and/or surveillance of Bladder cancer. Our panel consisted of urologists and researchers from Europe, Asia, and the United States who reviewed original articles, reviews, and book chapters on individual Bladder Tumor markers published in the English language mainly using the PubMed search engine. Panel members also met during 3 international meetings to write recommendations regarding Bladder Tumor markers. The panel found that the most practical use of noninvasive tests is to monitor Bladder cancer recurrence, thereby reducing the number of surveillance cystoscopies performed each year. Markers also may be useful in the screening of high-risk individuals for early detection of Bladder cancer. However, more prospective studies are needed to strengthen this argument. Case-control and cohort studies show that several markers have a higher sensitivity to detect Bladder cancer. However, cytology is the superior marker in terms of specificity, although some markers in limited numbers of studies have shown specificity equivalent to that of cytology. Our panel believes that several Bladder Tumor markers are more accurate in detecting Bladder cancer than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is in detecting prostate cancer. However, Bladder Tumor markers are held to a higher standard than PSA. Therefore, use of Bladder Tumor markers in the management of patients with Bladder cancer will require the willingness of both urologists and clinicians to accept them.
William M Murphy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prognostic markers for Bladder cancer international consensus panel on Bladder Tumor markers
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Tomonori Habuchi, William M Murphy, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Michael Marberger, Michael J Droller, Barton H Grossman, Jack A Schalken, Bernd J Schmitzdrager, Peter GoebellAbstract:The International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers evaluated markers that have the ability to predict Tumor recurrence, progression, development of metastases, or response to therapy or patient survival. This article summarizes those findings. The panel mainly reviewed articles listed in PubMed on various prognostic indicators for Bladder cancer. Based on these studies, most of which were case-control retrospective studies, various prognostic indicators were classified into 6 groups: (1) microsatellite-associated markers, (2) proto-oncogenes/oncogenes, (3) Tumor suppressor genes, (4) cell cycle regulators, (5) angiogenesis-related factors, and (6) extracellular matrix adhesion molecules. The panel concluded that although certain markers, such as Ki-67 and p53, appear to be promising in predicting recurrence and progression of Bladder cancer, the data are still heterogeneous. The panel recommends that identifying definitive criteria for test positivity, a clearly defined patient population, standardization of techniques used to evaluate markers, and clearly specified endpoints and statistical methods will help to bring accurate independent prognostic indicators into the clinical management of patients with Bladder cancer.
-
Bladder Tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on Bladder Tumor markers.
Urology, 2005Co-Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar, Tomonori Habuchi, H Barton Grossman, William M Murphy, Stefan H Hautmann, George P Hemstreet, Aldo V Bono, Robert H Getzenberg, Peter Goebell, Bernd J Schmitz-drägerAbstract:This is the first of 2 articles that summarize the findings of the International Consensus Panel on cytology and Bladder Tumor markers. The objectives of our panel were to reach a consensus on the areas where markers are needed, to define the attributes of an ideal Tumor marker, and to identify which marker(s) would be suitable for diagnosis and/or surveillance of Bladder cancer. Our panel consisted of urologists and researchers from Europe, Asia, and the United States who reviewed original articles, reviews, and book chapters on individual Bladder Tumor markers published in the English language mainly using the PubMed search engine. Panel members also met during 3 international meetings to write recommendations regarding Bladder Tumor markers. The panel found that the most practical use of noninvasive tests is to monitor Bladder cancer recurrence, thereby reducing the number of surveillance cystoscopies performed each year. Markers also may be useful in the screening of high-risk individuals for early detection of Bladder cancer. However, more prospective studies are needed to strengthen this argument. Case-control and cohort studies show that several markers have a higher sensitivity to detect Bladder cancer. However, cytology is the superior marker in terms of specificity, although some markers in limited numbers of studies have shown specificity equivalent to that of cytology. Our panel believes that several Bladder Tumor markers are more accurate in detecting Bladder cancer than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is in detecting prostate cancer. However, Bladder Tumor markers are held to a higher standard than PSA. Therefore, use of Bladder Tumor markers in the management of patients with Bladder cancer will require the willingness of both urologists and clinicians to accept them.