top of page
Search

The Biomarker Bottleneck in Bladder Cancer: Why Aren’t We Using the Data?

  • Writer: Polygon Health Team
    Polygon Health Team
  • 40 minutes ago
  • 3 min read

This is a remote clinical data analysis study to understand better the bladder cancer patient journey and will later involve consent to automatically extract and deliver your anonymized clinical records to the study investigator. A more complete view of the patient journey will help researchers better understand your condition and improve treatments for others in the future. Your involvement can make a real difference in how diseases are studied and treated.


Bladder cancer is one of the most heavily monitored cancers in oncology—yet the tools we use to detect it haven’t changed much in decades. Most patients still undergo cystoscopy (a camera inserted into the bladder) and urine cytology (a microscope-based look for abnormal cells). While these are time-tested, they’re invasive, uncomfortable, and often miss low-grade or flat tumors.


But here’s the catch: better, non-invasive tools already exist. So why aren’t we using them more widely?


 

The Rise of Urinary Biomarkers


In recent years, a range of urine-based biomarker tests has emerged, offering fast, painless alternatives to cystoscopy and cytology:

Test

Technology

Detects

Sensitivity

Specificity

NMP22

Protein detection (ELISA)

Nuclear matrix protein

~55–70%

~60–80%

UroVysion FISH

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

Chromosomal abnormalities

~70–80%

~65–75%

CxBladder

mRNA expression panel

Tumor-associated gene expression

~85–95%

~85–95%

Urine Cytology

Microscopic cell review

Mostly high-grade tumors

~30–60%

~90–95%

Cytology remains highly specific—but its low sensitivity, especially for low-grade tumors, limits its usefulness alone.


 

🌍 Global Use: A Tale of Two Worlds


While New Zealand and parts of Europe have adopted urine-based biomarkers as a routine part of bladder cancer monitoring and triage, most U.S. practices still default to cystoscopy. Here’s a look at current adoption patterns:


  • 🇳🇿 New Zealand: CxBladder is approved and funded for clinical use, often replacing cystoscopy in certain low-risk groups.

  • 🇪🇺 Europe: Use of UroVysion and NMP22 is more common in academic settings and as triage tools.

  • 🇺🇸 United States: Biomarkers are often out-of-pocket expenses, not consistently reimbursed, and rarely integrated into clinical guidelines—so they’re used sparingly, if at all.


 

What’s Holding Us Back?


Even though the science is strong, three major barriers are slowing down adoption:


1. Low Reimbursement

Most biomarker tests are not covered by insurance unless cytology is inconclusive. That means patients either pay out of pocket or skip the test entirely.


2. Lack of Guideline Integration

Leading organizations like the American Urological Association (AUA) mention these tests, but don’t yet recommend them routinely. Without stronger endorsements, many clinicians stick to the standard tools.


3. Clinician Familiarity & Trust

Some urologists and oncologists remain cautious—either due to unfamiliarity with interpreting results, or uncertainty about how much the biomarker should influence care.


 

So When Should Biomarkers Be Considered?


Think of biomarkers as decision aids, especially in these scenarios:

Situation

Consider This Test

Low-grade, non-invasive tumor monitoring

CxBladder

Ambiguous cytology result

UroVysion FISH

Symptomatic patients with negative cystoscopy

NMP22 or CxBladder

Surveillance fatigue from repeated cystoscopies

CxBladder (if accessible)

Pro tip: Many of these tests are most useful when they’re negative—helping avoid unnecessary procedures.


 

Final Thought: You Can’t Act on What You Don’t Test For


Bladder cancer management is all about risk—and risk requires data. Urine-based biomarkers aren’t replacements for cystoscopy, but they can be powerful complements or even temporary substitutes.


Ask your provider whether a urine-based test could add clarity—especially if you’re experiencing recurrence, ambiguous symptoms, or diagnostic fatigue.


It’s time to stop treating cystoscopy and cytology as the only tools in the toolbox.


 

✅ Want more insights like this? Join the Bladder Cancer Patient Connect Map to connect with others and learn what questions are worth asking.

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page