In 1997 an international group of scientists organized a meeting in Barcelona, Spain, to discuss the use of biomarkers in the management of patients with bladder cancer. This meeting was the offspring of an - initially informal - group that finally resulted in the foundation and incorporation of the International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) e.V. in 2005. Over the years the group has supported several research initiatives and generated several recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. Meeting quality was generated by inviting experts presenting state-of-the-art lectures or work in progress reports, interdisciplinarity and the limited number of participants supporting an open and personal exchange resulted in a format increasingly attracting participants from all over the world. The recent limitations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic were partially met by organizing several well attended webinars. The future challenge is to maintain the IBCN meeting spirit despite an increasing interest of the scientific community and industrial partners to participate. However, the integration of and interaction between increasingly more specialized disciplines is a challenge that can be better catalyzed by an international multidisciplinary network than mostly national professional associations. (c)

This narrative of the history of the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) presents the story of the founding and development of this organization and the creation and establishment of its initiatives and programs. It includes a description of how “Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations” came to be designated as its “official journal”, thus commemorating the anniversary of the Journal's twenty-five years of publication.

This narrative reviews the history of Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations from its inception and founding through its development to reach its current status. It describes the difficulties it experienced during its initial years when it almost folded, its resuscitation when it was designated as the "official journal" of the Society of Urologic Oncology, its merger with Seminars in Urologic Oncology to strengthen the content of both journals in a new format, its acceptance for indexation by the National Library of Medicine, its progress to monthly publication in addressing the needs of both authors and readership, and its current status as a leading multidisciplinary journal in urologic oncology. As a founding editor and managing editor for the first 5 years and then as editor-in-chief for the next 20 years, the author has been integrally involved in each step of the Journal's development and maturation. The Journal has been referred to as "the journal that almost never was" as it now has reached its 25th year of publication. This article commemorates the Journal's 25th Anniversary and gratefully acknowledges all of those investigators, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and the readership who have contributed to the Journal's ongoing success.

Background, context and purposeIn spite of the mixed evidence for their impact, survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) are recommended to enhance quality of care for cancer survivors. Data on the feasibility of SCPs in bladder cancer (BC) is sparse. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study describes the iterative development, acceptability and feasibility of BC specific SCP (BC-SCP) in clinical settings.MethodsIn Phase I, we developed the BC-SCP. In Phase II, we conducted four focus groups with 19 patients and 15 providers to examine its acceptability and usability challenges. Data analyses using the Atlas.ti program, informed refinement of the BC-SCP. In Phase III, we conducted feasibility testing of the refined BC-SCP with 18 providers from 12 health-centers. An encounter survey was completed after each assessment to examine the feasibility of the BC-SCP. Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests were used for comparative analyses.ResultsDuring phase I, we observed high patient and provider acceptability of the BC-SCP and substantial engagement in improving its content, design, and structure. In Phase II, providers completed 59BC-SCPs. Mean time for BC-SCP completion was 12.3min. Providers reported that BC-SCP content was clear, did not hamper clinic flow and was readily completed with easy-to-access information. Comparative analyses to examine differences in SCP completion time by patient clinico-demographic characteristics and provider type revealed no significant differences.ConclusionsOur BC-SCP has clinical relevance, and can be used in an active practice setting. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of and sharing the BC-SCP with patients and care providers, particularly within the electronic medical record. In summary, BC-SCPs are essential to improve the follow up care of BC survivors. Clinical resources are required to ensure appropriate implementation of BC-SCPs.Trial registrationStudy HUM00056082.

With the advent of novel genomic and transcriptomic technologies, new urinary biomarkers have been identified and tested for bladder cancer (BCa) surveillance. To summarize the current status of urinary biomarkers for the detection of recurrence and/or progression in the follow-up of non-muscle invasive BCa patients, and to assess the value of urinary biomarkers in predicting response to intravesical Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) therapy.

We thank the authors for their letter and hope to provide some clarification from the perspective of the six journal editors [1–5]. The Gleason system has endured because it aligns with clinical outcomes but is awkward for patients and physicians alike. It is misleading, as it starts at 6; it does not discriminate between the combinations that compose Gleason 7; and it does not clearly show the emerging prognostic distinctions among the high-grade cancers. These issues have created an obstacle not only in managing patients but also in the consistency of scientific reports. This is particularly true for assessing patient suitability for active surveillance and for the nuanced treatments for higher grade tumors. The conference at which the new systemwas proposed was attended by several of us. The naming of the systemwas a contentious issue and is not yet fully resolved, as emphasized in the letter by Egevad et al, but there was little disagreement among participants about the new system’s value or validity. As editors and as practitioners caring for patients with prostate cancer, we believe that the new system for grouping of Gleason grade has clinical and pragmatic merit. Accordingly, we have encouraged our authors to use the new grouping in submitted manuscripts. This should help provide clarity and better comparative assessment of outcomes and treatment results. Nevertheless, we recognize that little in scientific publishing is static, and ongoing study and novel analyses will likely result in further modifications. The exact name used for the system, while important for reference and consistency, is not within our purview to decide, and we await wider discussion in the prostate cancer community—and

I am the son of immigrant parents from simple backgrounds in Germany who had escaped from the Holocaust in the late 1930s and settled in a middle-class neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. They lived their everyday lives with honesty and integrity, engraining these values in my younger brother and me as they spoke of the importance of education, an appreciation of a simple, non-materialistic lifestyle, and the responsibility of “giving back” for whatever success we might achieve. Their encouragement that I go into medicine as the embodiment of these values seemed the logical outgrowth.

Editors of the major urological literature advocate the use of the recent Gleason Grade groupings when reporting analyses of prostate cancer.

We thank the authors for their letter and hope to provide some clarification from the perspective of the 7 journal editors. The Gleason system has endured because it aligns with clinical outcomes but is awkward for patients and physicians alike. It is misleading as it starts at 6, does not discriminate between the combinations that comprise Gleason 7, and does not clearly show the emerging prognostic distinctions between the high-grade cancers. This has created an obstacle, not only in managing patients, but also in the consistency of scientific reports. This is particularly true when assessing patient suitability for active surveillance, and also with the nuanced treatments for higher-grade tumors. The conference at which the new system was proposed was attended by several of us. The naming of the system was a contentious issue and is not yet fully resolved, as emphasized by the letter from Samaratunga et al, but there was little disagreement among participants about its value or validity.

The International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) has endorsed modifications to the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer (1Epstein J.I. Egevad L. Amin M.B. et al.The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar). Five grade groups have been defined, with tumors of Grade Group 1 being the least aggressive and having the lowest likelihood of progression, whereas those of Grade Group 5 have the highest likelihood of early systemic spread. We believe this new system provides clearer guidance for pathologists to classify cancers on the basis of gland morphology, and it aligns better with contemporary management including active surveillance. The editors of the major uro-oncology journals believe this is a helpful change for clinicians, researchers, and patients alike and are eager to help this system establish itself in the reporting of pathologic grade. To that end, we are now asking investigators to use the new system in the reporting of prostate cancers in their publications. As the Grade Groups correspond largely with current Gleason scores 6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, 9, and 10, the translation should be relatively simple. Over the next 1 to 2 years, side-by-side reporting of old and new histology may be temporarily necessary. We do recognize that some institutional and national databases are not set up to make the translation, and exceptions will be granted in these cases. In Regard to Zietman et alInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsVol. 96Issue 5PreviewTo the Editor: It was with some surprise that we read of 6 Letters to the Editor (1-6) authored by the editors of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics, Urology, Urologic Oncology, BJU International, European Urology, and The Journal of Urology regarding the recently defined grading system for prostate cancer (7). For clarification the letter published in The Journal of Urology (3) is headed “Stage Grouping,” which would seem to be an error. Full-Text PDF