The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1678-1685, May 2010

Marker Lesion Experiments in Bladder Cancer—What Have We Learned?

  • Ofer N. Gofrit

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Department of Urology, Hadassah University Hospital, P.O. Box 12000, Jerusalem 91120, Israel (telephone: +972-2-6776874; FAX: +972-2-6430929)
  • ,
  • Kevin C. Zorn

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • ,
  • Sergey Shikanov

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • ,
  • Gary D. Steinberg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois

Received 4 July 2009 published online 17 March 2010.

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.

Key Words: urinary bladder neoplasms, ethics, research, safety, patient selection, antineoplastic agents

Abbreviations and Acronyms: BCG, bacillus Calmette-Guerin, CR, complete response, IL, interleukin, MMC, mitomycin-C, TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α, TURBT, transurethral resection of bladder tumor

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 See Editorial on page 1667.

PII: S0022-5347(09)03403-X

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.104

Refers to article:

  • Are We Making Significant Progress in the Diagnosis and Management of Bladder Cancer? , 17 March 2010

    G. Joel DeCastro, Gary D. Steinberg
    The Journal of Urology May 2010 (Vol. 183, Issue 5, Pages 1667-1668)

The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1678-1685, May 2010