{"id":330,"date":"2021-09-30T10:24:42","date_gmt":"2021-09-30T08:24:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bcamonitor.org\/?p=330"},"modified":"2026-09-22T13:34:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T13:34:26","slug":"advantages-of-alternating-bladder-epicheck-with-cystoscopy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bcamonitor.org\/?p=330","title":{"rendered":"Advantages of alternating Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae with cystoscopy"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”0px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_padding=”||4px|||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” min_height=”280px” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

Reviewed by Professor J\u00f8rgen Bjerggaard Jensen (Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark)<\/p>\n

\u201cA strategy alternating the urine marker Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae<\/em>\u00a0with cystoscopy in the surveillance of patients with low-grade intermediate-risk bladder cancer is cost-equivalent in the US and European countries.\u201d [1]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThanks to Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae\u2019s high high-grade sensitivity and specificity and a well-planned infrastructure, all high-grade\/muscle-invasive tumours were detected while avoiding 76% of unnecessary cystoscopies.\u201d [2]<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Reduced burden on patients and healthcare systems<\/h2>\n

Due to the high frequency of recurrence in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), surveillance is essential. The current guidelines recommend frequent cystoscopy and urine cytology. However, frequent cystoscopies pose a significant burden for both patients and healthcare systems<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

A recent publication by Dr. Yair Lotan analysed the economic impact of alternating Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae with standard surveillance in patients with low-grade NMIBC across the U.S. and 9 European countries with varied healthcare cost structures [1]. The investigators developed a theoretical decision analysis model to compare standard surveillance with a modified surveillance schedule in which the Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae\u00a0was alternated with cystoscopy plus cytology.<\/p>\n

Alternating Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae\u00a0with standard surveillance reduced the costs by \u20ac154 to \u20ac388 per patient over a period of 2 years in 7 countri<\/strong>es. In the 3 other countries, the modified surveillance schedule resulted in a negligible cost increase (\u20ac33-103\/patient over 2 years). The overall model cost reduction is driven by the high specificity of the Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae. Patients with a positive test result need to undergo a cystoscopy, which is an additional cost. A test with a high specificity has a low rate of false positive results and can therefore dramatically reduce the costs.<\/p>\n

Another advantage of the modified approach is the reduced patient discomfort related to frequent cystoscopies.
Prospective studies will be necessary to validate these findings.<\/p>\n

Read the publication here<\/a>.
Or
Read a press release of the publication here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Real-world evidence from the BE Home pilot<\/h2>\n

The BE Home pilot led by Prof. Witjes at Radboud University Medical Center assessed the feasibility and clinical outcomes of alternating a non-invasive urine test, Bladder EpiCheck\u00ae, with cystoscopy\/cytology in a real-world setting [2].<\/p>\n

In the BE Home pilot, 61 patients were given a kit with instructions for collection and shipment of a urine sample from home<\/strong>. When the sample arrived in a central lab, it was processed and results were sent to the hospital. The results and next steps were discussed by the urologist in a phone call with the patient:<\/p>\n