Urine Tumor Markers in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis Overview of Urine Tumor Markers

No Results

No Results


More than 30 urinary biomarkers have been reported for use in bladder cancer diagnosis, but only a few are commercially available; the remainder are still being tested. [1, 2]  In addition to urine cytology, commercially available tests include the following:

For the present, cystoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting bladder cancers. However, it is invasive, relatively expensive, and operator dependent, and has potential complications that include infection, bleeding, perforation, and urinary retention. [3]

Urine cytology is still the most accurate noninvasive test for bladder cancer that is in routine clinical use, with a sensitivity of 80–90% and a specificity of 98–100% for detection of high-grade lesions and carcinoma in situ (CIS). The disadvantages of urine cytology are that it is relatively ineffective at detecting low-grade malignancy, and benign inflammatory conditions may result in false positive results. [4]

Use of urine biomarkers in the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer is controversial. [5, 6, 7] All of these assays may yield false-positive and false-negative results. .At present, guidelines do not recommend using the biomarker assays that are currently available to replace cystoscopy. However, biomarker assays may provide additional molecular information to guide individualized surveillance and therapy. [3]  In the future, other newer assays based on telomerase and microsatellite analysis may prove to be a better detection method than urinary cytology. [8]  

For more information, see Bladder Cancer, as well as Cystoscopy and Surveillance for Recurrent Bladder Cancer.

The study of genetic aberrations commonly associated with urothelial carcinoma provides a more objective assessment for diagnosing and detecting recurrent disease. Homozygous loss of band 9p21, the site for the tumor suppressor gene P16, is a known early genetic event in the development of papillary carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS). [9]  

Increased chromosomal instability and aneuploidy have been implicated in tumor progression. A study by Sokolova et al of 9 genetic markers for detecting urothelial carcinoma showed that polysomy of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and deletion of 9p21 were the most sensitive and specific markers, detecting 95% of recurrent urothelial carcinomas. [10] Halling et al established that a threshold of 5 or more cells with polysomy was 84% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting recurrent urothelial cancer. [9]  Tests for mutations in the FGFR3 oncogene may also hold promise for diagnosing and predicting recurrence. [4]   

A commercial FISH assay (UroVysion Bladder Cancer Kit, Abbott Molecular; DesPlaines, Ill), which includes probes for the centromeres for chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and has a locus-specific probe for 9p21, was developed to screen for recurrent urothelial carcinoma and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005. The intended use is as an aid for initial diagnosis of bladder cancer in patients with hematuria and subsequent monitoring for tumor recurrence in patients previously diagnosed with bladder cancer. Positive findings on FISH often precede visual evidence of bladder tumor.

Initial comparisons of urine cytology with FISH for detecting bladder cancer recurrence showed that FISH yielded a greater sensitivity. [11] FISH is 42-83% sensitive for detecting pTa and pT1 lesions and 92-100% sensitive for pT2-4 invasive lesions in patients with known bladder cancer, while urine cytology yields sensitivities of 24-50% for pTa and pT1 lesions and 78-85% for pT2-4 invasive lesions. [12]

For suspected new cases of urothelial carcinoma, cytology yields a reported diagnostic sensitivity of 48%. [13]

Laudadio et al found that FISH is considerably more sensitive and only slightly less specific than cytology in diagnosing urothelial carcinoma. FISH analysis yielded a high sensitivity for detecting new cases of urothelial carcinoma, as well as recurrences. FISH detected 95% of cases with high-grade carcinoma, while cytology detected 41% of such cases. FISH yielded an overall specificity of 65%, compared to 93% with cytology. These researchers recommended FISH as a useful initial diagnostic tool in patients suspected of both new and recurrent bladder cancer.

Nuclear matrix, first described in 1974, is the nonchromatin structure that supports nuclear shape and organizes DNA. It also takes part in DNA replication and transcription, as well as RNA processing. [14, 15, 16]

NMP-22 is involved in the proper distribution of chromatin to daughter cells during cell division and is found in the nuclear matrix of all cell types. NMP-22 is thought to be released from the nuclei of tumor cells after they die and can be detected in the urine. Research has found that persons with bladder cancer may have urinary NMP-22 levels up to 25 times that in healthy persons. [17]

The NMP-22 BladderChek test (Alere; Waltham, Mass) is an in vitro immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of NMP-22 in urine. Unlike cytologic analysis, the NMP-22 test does not depend on intact cells and does not require expert analysis or laboratory time. The test provides an absolute positive or negative test result, much in the same manner as a pregnancy test.

It is a painless and noninvasive assay that provides results within 30 minutes (thus allowing performance during an office visit), and its cost is less than half that of cytology. It is the only in-office test approved by the FDA in 2000 for the diagnosis of bladder cancer.

Grossman et al reported that when combined with cystoscopy, the NMP-22 test improves the detection of recurrence in patients with a history of bladder cancer. [18] Initial cystoscopy alone detected 91% of the cancers. The combination of the NMP-22 test with cystoscopy increased overall sensitivity to 99%. The NMP-22 test was significantly more sensitive than cytologic analysis of voided urine.

Of concern with the NMP-22 assay is its variability of performance in detecting bladder cancer. A multicenter study by Shariat et al assessed the variability in the diagnostic performance of NMP-22 for detecting recurrence and progression in patients with previous Ta, T1, and/or CIS and found that the manufacturer cutoff of 10 U/mL detected 57% of cases with a 19% false-positive rate. [19] For each NMP-22 cutoff assessed, NMP-22 had a higher sensitivity for detecting grade III and stage T2 or greater bladder cancer than for detecting any cancer.

No optimal cutoffs for detecting any or aggressive bladder cancer could be derived based on NMP-22 values. The authors concluded that there is a substantial degree of heterogeneity in the diagnostic performance of NMP-22 applied to populations from different institutions. There was no clearly defined NMP-22 cutoff, but there was a continuum of risk for recurrence and progression.

The BTA STAT & TRAK tests (Polymedco; Cortlandt Manor, NY) use monoclonal antibodies to detect complement factor H-related protein and complement factor H in voided urine specimens. These factors are found in bladder cancer cell lines and inhibit the complement cascade to prevent cell lysis.BTA STAT is a point of care qualitative assay with an average sensitivity and specificity of 68.7% (53-89%) and 73.7% (54-93%), respectively.BTA TRAK is a quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with similar sensitivity and specificity of 62% (17-78%) and 73.6% (51-95%), respectively. [20] Studies have shown wide ranges of sensitivity and specificity with BTA testing. Additionally, the specificity of both of these tests can be significantly decreased, as false positives have been noted to occur in the setting of hematuria, urolithiasis, inflammation, recent instrumentation, other genitourinary malignancies, and intravesical BCG therapy. [21]

The ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ test (Scimedex; Denville, NJ) was originally developed in 1997 by Fradet and Lockhard as an immunohistochemical test with 3 fluorescent monoclonal antibodies directed at urothelial cell antigens found on exfoliated cells. Two antibodies, LDQ10 and M344, are directed against mucins, specifically glycoproteins found on epithelial cell surfaces in malignancy, and labeled with fluorescein. [21, 22, 23] The other antibody is labeled Texas red and directed against a high molecular weight glycosylated form of carcinoembryonic antigen 19A211. M344 and CEA 19A211 have been found to be expressed in 71% and 90% of Ta-T1 tumors, respectively. [21]

However, the test is limited in that it requires processing in laboratories with properly trained personnel. Additionally, it requires a minimum of 500 negative cells on the slide in order for the sample to be deemed negative. [22] As is common with other protein-based assays, false positives are common in the setting of urinary tract infection, urolithiasis, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The use of Immunocyt/uCyt+ improves sensitivity at a minimum of 15% over cytology alone and ranges from 53.8-94.1%, with greater improvements in low-grade tumors. This improves further with the combination of cytology and Immunocyt/uCyt+. Specificity is slightly lower than that of cytology, at 61-80.7%. The negative predictive value is improved with the use of Immunocyt/uCyt+, at 81-96.2%, whereas the positive predictive value is worse (26-63.2%). [22] In a recent analysis, Comploj et al. noted that the sensitivity of Immunocyt/uCyt+ increased from 63% for a pTa tumor to 80% for a pT1 tumor and in combination with cytology it increased from 65% to 88%. Conversely, poorer sensitivity was noted in T2 tumors (68%), likely because the 19A211, M344, and CEA 19A211 antigens are not found in muscle-invasive tumors. [23]

Nomograms using immunocytology (Immunocyt/uCyt+) have been created for the detection of bladder cancer. According to the authors, the addition of immunocytology improved the diagnostic accuracy of the nomogram and outperformed cytology with a significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive value.

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) belongs to a family of tyrosine kinase receptors and is encoded by the FGFR3 gene. Specific point mutations in various domains result in constitutive activation of the receptor and have been found in approximately 50% of urothelial carcinomas. [24] The frequency of these mutations is high in low-grade pTa tumors and low in pT1-4 tumors. The presence of the FGFR3 mutation is a selective marker for favorable disease, with a low recurrence rate and improvement in disease-specific survival. [25, 26, 27]

Predictive Biosciences (Lexington, Mass) developed a urine-based FGFR3 assay using ultradeep amplicon sequencing, allowing a high clinical sensitivity of 55.8% and specificity of 100%, similar to that of tissue. [28] They have implemented the use of this assay in a multianalyte diagnostic assay, CertNDx, used for the evaluation of hematuria and monitoring bladder cancer recurrence. For the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma, they analyze urine for the presence of mutant FGFR3, quantified matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), and hypermethylation of TWIST1 and NID2. This allows for the presence of 2 biomarker cutoff values. The presence of FGFR3 provides a high positive predictive value of 95.2%, while the lack of all 4 biomarkers provides a negative predictive value of 98.2%. [29] Furthermore, unlike other assays, this is not affected by the degree of hematuria or presence of other urinary tract diseases. [30]

CxBladder (PacificEdge, Dunedin, New Zealand) is a recently released urine-based assay consisting of 5 mRNA markers, CDC2, HOXA13, MDK, IGFBP5, and CXCR5. [31] The addition of CXCR5, or a mediator of neutrophil migration to sites of inflammation, allows the reduction of false positives secondary to the presence of acute or chronic inflammation. The sensitivity of this assay is superior to that of NMP-22 and cytology, at 83%, with a specificity of 85%. Interestingly, the specificity for high-grade tumors was 97% while the specificity for low-grade tumors was 69%. This offers a potential adjunct to cystoscopy for the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.

Several reviews have been performed to assess the myriad urine markers proposed for bladder cancer surveillance. They note that none of the markers has been proven sensitive and specific enough to replace cystoscopy. [32, 33] While commercially available urinary markers are promising, the clinical evidence is insufficient to warrant the substitution of the cystoscopic follow-up scheme with any of the currently available urine marker tests. [34, 35] If FISH and NMP-22 are considered to have some utility when used to complement or replace cytology, a dilemma arises when their results conflict with each other. Of particular interest is how to treat a patient with positive cytology and/or FISH findings when cystoscopy findings are negative.

The field of urothelial carcinoma tumor markers is an area of significant interest as a means to potentially improve cancer detection, as well as the cost and anxiety associated with surveillance. Several potentially clinically relevant biomarkers are under investigation, including the following [36] :

However, further studies are required to determine their application in the diagnosis and monitoring of urothelial carcinoma.

van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2005 Jun. 47(6):736-48. [Medline].

Schiffer E, Vlahou A, Petrolekas A, Stravodimos K, Tauber R, Geschwend JE, et al. Prediction of muscle-invasive bladder cancer using urinary proteomics. Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Aug 1. 15(15):4935-43. [Medline].

Maas M, Bedke J, Stenzl A, Todenhöfer T. Can urinary biomarkers replace cystoscopy?. World J Urol. 2018 Oct 3. [Medline].

Leiblich A. Recent Developments in the Search for Urinary Biomarkers in Bladder Cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Nov 13. 18 (12):100. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, Karnes RJ, Meyer RG, Powell EL, et al. A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and Vysis UroVysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Urol. 2002 May. 167(5):2001-6. [Medline].

Urquidi V, Goodison S, Ross S, Chang M, Dai Y, Rosser CJ. Diagnostic potential of urinary a1-antitrypsin and apolipoprotein E in the detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 2012 Dec. 188(6):2377-83. [Medline].

Miyake M, Goodison S, Rizwani W, Ross S, Bart Grossman H, Rosser CJ. Urinary BTA: indicator of bladder cancer or of hematuria. World J Urol. 2012 Dec. 30(6):869-73. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Eissa S, Motawi T, Badr S, Zaghlool A, Maher A. Evaluation of urinary human telomerase reverse transcriptase mRNA and scatter factor protein as urine markers for diagnosis of bladder cancer. Clin Lab. 2013. 59(3-4):317-23. [Medline].

Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, Meyer RG, Burkhardt HM, Halling AC, et al. A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 2000 Nov. 164(5):1768-75. [Medline].

Sokolova IA, Halling KC, Jenkins RB, Burkhardt HM, Meyer RG, Seelig SA, et al. The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn. 2000 Aug. 2(3):116-23. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Veeramachaneni R, Nordberg ML, Shi R, Herrera GA, Turbat-Herrera EA. Evaluation of fluorescence in situ hybridization as an ancillary tool to urine cytology in diagnosing urothelial carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003 Jun. 28(6):301-7. [Medline].

Skacel M, Fahmy M, Brainard JA, Pettay JD, Biscotti CV, Liou LS, et al. Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol. 2003 Jun. 169(6):2101-5. [Medline].

Saad A, Hanbury DC, McNicholas TA, Boustead GB, Morgan S, Woodman AC. A study comparing various noninvasive methods of detecting bladder cancer in urine. BJU Int. 2002 Mar. 89(4):369-73. [Medline].

Laudadio J, Keane TE, Reeves HM, Savage SJ, Hoda RS, Lage JM, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting transitional cell carcinoma: implications for clinical practice. BJU Int. 2005 Dec. 96(9):1280-5. [Medline].

Berezney R, Coffey DS. Identification of a nuclear protein matrix. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1974 Oct 23. 60(4):1410-7. [Medline].

Pardoll DM, Vogelstein B, Coffey DS. A fixed site of DNA replication in eucaryotic cells. Cell. 1980 Feb. 19(2):527-36. [Medline].

Gordon JN, Shu WP, Schlussel RN, Droller MJ, Liu BC. Altered extracellular matrices influence cellular processes and nuclear matrix organizations of overlying human bladder urothelial cells. Cancer Res. 1993 Oct 15. 53(20):4971-7. [Medline].

Keesee SK, Briggman JV, Thill G, Wu YJ. Utilization of nuclear matrix proteins for cancer diagnosis. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 1996. 6(2-3):189-214. [Medline].

Grossman HB, Soloway M, Messing E, Katz G, Stein B, Kassabian V, et al. Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA. 2006 Jan 18. 295(3):299-305. [Medline].

Konety BR. Molecular markers in bladder cancer: a critical appraisal. Urol Oncol. 2006 Jul-Aug. 24(4):326-37. [Medline].

Pode D, Shapiro A, Wald M, Nativ O, Laufer M, Kaver I. Noninvasive detection of bladder cancer with the BTA stat test. J Urol. 1999 Feb. 161(2):443-6. [Medline].

Greene KL, Berry A, Konety BR. Diagnostic Utility of the ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ Test in Bladder Cancer. Rev Urol. 2006 Fall. 8(4):190-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Comploj E, Mian C, Ambrosini-Spaltro A, Dechet C, Palermo S, Trenti E, et al. uCyt+/ImmunoCyt and cytology in the detection of urothelial carcinoma: an update on 7422 analyses. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jul. 121(7):392-7. [Medline].

van Oers JM, Lurkin I, van Exsel AJ, Nijsen Y, van Rhijn BW, van der Aa MN. A simple and fast method for the simultaneous detection of nine fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutations in bladder cancer and voided urine. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Nov 1. 11(21):7743-8. [Medline].

Billerey C, Chopin D, Aubriot-Lorton MH, Ricol D, Gil Diez de Medina S, Van Rhijn B. Frequent FGFR3 mutations in papillary non-invasive bladder (pTa) tumors. Am J Pathol. 2001 Jun. 158(6):1955-9. [Medline].

van Rhijn BW, van Tilborg AA, Lurkin I, Bonaventure J, de Vries A, Thiery JP. Novel fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) mutations in bladder cancer previously identified in non-lethal skeletal disorders. Eur J Hum Genet. 2002 Dec. 10(12):819-24. [Medline].

van Oers JM, Zwarthoff EC, Rehman I, Azzouzi AR, Cussenot O, Meuth M, et al. FGFR3 mutations indicate better survival in invasive upper urinary tract and bladder tumours. Eur Urol. 2009 Mar. 55(3):650-7. [Medline].

Millholland JM, Li S, Fernandez CA, Shuber AP. Detection of low frequency FGFR3 mutations in the urine of bladder cancer patients using next-generation deep sequencing. Res. Reports Urol. June 2012. 4:33-40.

Karnes RJ, Fernandez CA, Shuber AP. A noninvasive multianalyte urine-based diagnostic assay for urothelial cancer of the bladder in the evaluation of hematuria. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Sep. 87(9):835-42. [Medline].

Tilki D, Burger M, Dalbagni G, Grossman HB, Hakenberg OW, Palou J, et al. Urine markers for detection and surveillance of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2011 Sep. 60(3):484-92. [Medline].

O’Sullivan P, Sharples K, Dalphin M, Davidson P, Gilling P, Cambridge L. A multigene urine test for the detection and stratification of bladder cancer in patients presenting with hematuria. J Urol. 2012 Sep. 188(3):741-7. [Medline].

Horstmann M, Patschan O, Hennenlotter J, Senger E, Feil G, Stenzl A. Combinations of urine-based tumour markers in bladder cancer surveillance. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2009. 43(6):461-6. [Medline].

Todenhöfer T, Hennenlotter J, Esser M, Mohrhardt S, Tews V, Aufderklamm S. Combined application of cytology and molecular urine markers to improve the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 May. 121(5):252-60. [Medline].

Black PC, Brown GA, Dinney CP. Molecular markers of urothelial cancer and their use in the monitoring of superficial urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 10. 24(35):5528-35. [Medline].

Goodison S, Rosser CJ, Urquidi V. Bladder cancer detection and monitoring: assessment of urine- and blood-based marker tests. Mol Diagn Ther. 2013 Apr. 17(2):71-84. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Wadhwa N, Jatawa SK, Tiwari A. Republished: non-invasive urine based tests for the detection of bladder cancer. Postgrad Med J. 2013 Jun. 89(1052):352-7. [Medline].

Tölle A, Jung M, Rabenhorst S, Kilic E, Jung K, Weikert S. Identification of microRNAs in blood and urine as tumour markers for the detection of urinary bladder cancer. Oncol Rep. 2013 Oct. 30(4):1949-56. [Medline].

Shariat SF, Marberger MJ, Lotan Y, Sanchez-Carbayo M, Zippe C, Lüdecke G, et al. Variability in the performance of nuclear matrix protein 22 for the detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 2006 Sep. 176(3):919-26; discussion 926. [Medline].

Rizzoli G, Mazzucco A, Brumana T, Stellin G, Livi U, Faggian G, et al. The risk of surgical treatment of tetralogy of Fallot: an appraisal. Int J Cardiol. 1985 Sep. 9(1):7-26. [Medline].

van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2005 Jun. 47(6):736-48. [Medline].

Mbeutcha A, Lucca I, Mathieu R, Lotan Y, Shariat SF. Current Status of Urinary Biomarkers for Detection and Surveillance of Bladder Cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2016 Feb. 43 (1):47-62. [Medline].

Chou R, Gore JL, Buckley D, Fu R, Gustafson K, Griffin JC, et al. Urinary Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Dec 15. 163 (12):922-31. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Gary David Steinberg, MD, FACS The Bruce and Beth White Family Professor and Vice Chairman of Urology, Director of Urologic Oncology, Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago Medical Center and Cancer Center

Gary David Steinberg, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for Cancer Research, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Urology, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Society of Urologic Oncology

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Abbott Molecular for consulting; Received consulting fee from Endo Pharmaceuticals for consulting; Received consulting fee from Bioniche for consulting; Received consulting fee from Tengion for consulting; Received consulting fee from Archimedes for review panel membership; Received consulting fee from PhotoCure for review panel membership; Received consulting fee from Taris Biomedical for review panel membership; Received none from Cold Genesys for other; Received h for: Photocure; Taris Biomedical; Heat Biologics: Cold Genesys; Merck; Roche/Genentech; Karl Storz; Mdx Health, Telesta.

Rena D Malik, MD Resident Physician, Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center

Rena D Malik, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Brendan Curti, MD Director, Genitourinary Oncology Research, Robert W Franz Cancer Research Center, Earle A Chiles Research Institute, Providence Cancer Center

Brendan Curti, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Oregon Medical Association, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Prometheus Pharmaceuticals, BMS<br/>Received research grant from: Prometheus Pharmaceuticals, Viralytics, MedImmune, BMS, Galectin Therapeutics.

Bagi RP Jana, MD Professor of Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology), Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

Bagi RP Jana, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, SWOG

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Kush Sachdeva, MD Southern Oncology and Hematology Associates, Inspira Health Network

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Endourological Society, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Cook Medical; Olympus.

Mark H Katz, MD Fellow in Urologic Oncology and Minimally Invasive Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center

Mark H Katz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Urological Association, Endourological Society, and Society of Urologic Oncology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD Paul A Bunn Professor of Cancer Research, Professor of Surgery and Pharmacology, Director, University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center

Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Cancer Society, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Medical Society of Virginia, Society for Basic Urologic Research, and Society of Urologic Oncology

Disclosure: Key Genomics Ownership interest Co-Founder-50% Stock Ownership; KromaTiD, Inc Stock Options Board membership

Urine Tumor Markers in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis Overview of Urine Tumor Markers

Research & References of Urine Tumor Markers in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis Overview of Urine Tumor Markers|A&C Accounting And Tax Services