Post-Treatment Surveillance of Bladder Cancer

Variant: 1 Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US pelvis (bladder)	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US pelvis (bladder)	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
Fluoroscopy abdomen loopogram	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US pelvis (bladder)	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Brian C. Allen, MD^a; Aytekin Oto, MD^b; Oguz Akin, MD^c; Lauren F. Alexander, MD^d; Adam T. Froemming, MD^e; Pat F. Fulgham, MD^f; David J. Halpern, MD, MPH^g; Lori Mankowski Gettle, MD, MBA^h; Jodi K. Maranchie, MDⁱ; Bhavik N. Patel, MD, MBA^j; Michael N. Patlas, MD^k; Nicola Schieda, MD^l; Abhishek Solanki, ^m; Baris Turkbey, MDⁿ; Aradhana M. Venkatesan, MD^o; Don C. Yoo, MD^p; Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH^q.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
A. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
B. CT Chest

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
C. CTU

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
E. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
F. MRU

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
G. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
H. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 1: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer no symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
I. US Pelvis (Bladder)

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
A. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
B. CT Chest

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
C. CTU

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
E. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
F. MRU

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
G. Radiography Chest

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
H. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 2: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer with symptoms or risk factors. Post-treatment surveillance.
I. US Pelvis (Bladder)

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
A. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
B. CT Chest

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
C. CTU

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
E. Fluoroscopy Abdomen Loopogram

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
F. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
G. MRU

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
H. Radiography Chest

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
I. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 3: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer with or without cystectomy. Post-treatment surveillance.
J. US Pelvis (Bladder)

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 70(1):7-30, 2020 01.
2.	Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017.
3.	Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging:, van der Pol CB, Sahni VA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Pretreatment Staging of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 15(5S):S150-S159, 2018 May.
4.	Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline. J Urol. 196(4):1021-9, 2016 Oct.
5.	Kim HS, Ku JH, Kim SJ, et al. Prognostic Factors for Recurrence and Progression in Korean Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients: A Retrospective, Multi-Institutional Study. Yonsei Med J. 57(4):855-64, 2016 Jul.
6.	Liu S, Hou J, Zhang H, et al. The evaluation of the risk factors for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrence after transurethral resection (TURBt) in Chinese population. PLoS ONE. 10(4):e0123617, 2015.
7.	Zachos I, Tzortzis V, Mitrakas L, et al. Tumor size and T stage correlate independently with recurrence and progression in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients treated with adjuvant BCG. Tumour Biol. 35(5):4185-9, 2014 May.
8.	Lammers RJ, Hendriks JC, Rodriguez Faba OR, Witjes WP, Palou J, Witjes JA. Prediction model for recurrence probabilities after intravesical chemotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including external validation. World J Urol. 34(2):173-80, 2016 Feb.
9.	Eifler JB, Barocas DA, Resnick MJ. Predictors of outcome in bladder cancer. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 12(11):1549-54, 2014 Nov.
10.	Muppa P, Gupta S, Frank I, et al. Prognostic significance of lymphatic, vascular and perineural invasion for bladder cancer patients treated by radical cystectomy. Pathology. 49(3):259-266, 2017 Apr.
11.	Tobisu K, Tanaka Y, Mizutani T, Kakizoe T. Transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra in men following cystectomy for bladder cancer: multivariate analysis for risk factors. J Urol. 1991; 146(6):1551-1553; discussion 1553-1554.
12.	Kim SP, Frank I, Cheville JC, et al. The impact of squamous and glandular differentiation on survival after radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 188(2):405-9, 2012 Aug.
13.	Linder BJ, Frank I, Cheville JC, et al. Outcomes following radical cystectomy for nested variant of urothelial carcinoma: a matched cohort analysis. J Urol. 189(5):1670-5, 2013 May.
14.	Wang JK, Boorjian SA, Cheville JC, et al. Outcomes following radical cystectomy for micropapillary bladder cancer versus pure urothelial carcinoma: a matched cohort analysis. World J Urol. 30(6):801-6, 2012 Dec.
15.	Herr HW, Milan TN, Dalbagni G. BCG-refractory vs. BCG-relapsing non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a prospective cohort outcomes study. UROL. ONCOL.. 33(3):108.e1-4, 2015 Mar.
16.	Shirakawa H, Kikuchi E, Tanaka N, et al. Prognostic significance of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin failure classification in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int. 110(6 Pt B):E216-21, 2012 Sep.
17.	Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 240(2):205-13, 2004 Aug.
18.	Kobayashi H, Kikuchi E, Mikami S, et al. Long term follow-up in patients with initially diagnosed low grade Ta non-muscle invasive bladder tumors: tumor recurrence and worsening progression. BMC Urol. 14:5, 2014 Jan 08.
19.	Millan-Rodriguez F, Chechile-Toniolo G, Salvador-Bayarri J, Huguet-Perez J, Vicente-Rodriguez J. Upper urinary tract tumors after primary superficial bladder tumors: prognostic factors and risk groups. J Urol. 164(4):1183-7, 2000 Oct.
20.	Hurle R, Losa A, Manzetti A, Lembo A. Upper urinary tract tumors developing after treatment of superficial bladder cancer: 7-year follow-up of 591 consecutive patients. Urology. 53(6):1144-8, 1999 Jun.
21.	Ok BG, Ji YS, Ko YH, Song PH. Usefulness of urine cytology as a routine work-up in the detection of recurrence in patients with prior non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: practicality and cost-effectiveness. Korean J Urol. 55(10):650-5, 2014 Oct.
22.	Yafi FA, Brimo F, Auger M, Aprikian A, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Is the performance of urinary cytology as high as reported historically? A contemporary analysis in the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. UROL. ONCOL.. 32(1):27.e1-6, 2014 Jan.
23.	Sternberg IA, Keren Paz GE, Chen LY, et al. Upper tract imaging surveillance is not effective in diagnosing upper tract recurrence in patients followed for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 190(4):1187-91, 2013 Oct.
24.	Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of muscle-invasiveness of bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 95:46-55, 2017 Oct.
25.	Gandhi N, Krishna S, Booth CM, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for tumour staging of bladder cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 122(5):744-753, 2018 11.
26.	Huang L, Kong Q, Liu Z, Wang J, Kang Z, Zhu Y. The Diagnostic Value of MR Imaging in Differentiating T Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. [Review]. Radiology. 286(2):502-511, 2018 02.
27.	Ueno Y, Takeuchi M, Tamada T, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement for the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multireader Validation Study. Eur Urol. 76(1):54-56, 2019 Jul.
28.	Wang H, Luo C, Zhang F, et al. Multiparametric MRI for Bladder Cancer: Validation of VI-RADS for the Detection of Detrusor Muscle Invasion. Radiology. 291(3):668-674, 2019 06.
29.	Rosenkrantz AB, Ego-Osuala IO, Khalef V, Deng FM, Taneja SS, Huang WC. Investigation of Multisequence Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detection of Recurrent Tumor After Transurethral Resection for Bladder Cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 40(2):201-5, 2016 Mar-Apr.
30.	Wang HJ, Pui MH, Guo Y, Yang D, Pan BT, Zhou XH. Diffusion-weighted MRI in bladder carcinoma: the differentiation between tumor recurrence and benign changes after resection. Abdom Imaging. 39(1):135-41, 2014 Feb.
31.	Lee KS, Zeikus E, DeWolf WC, Rofsky NM, Pedrosa I. MR urography versus retrograde pyelography/ureteroscopy for the exclusion of upper urinary tract malignancy. Clin Radiol. 2010; 65(3):185-192.
32.	Stamatiou K, Moschouris H, Papadaki M, Perlepes G, Skolarikos A. Accuracy of modern ultrasonographic techniques in the follow up of patients with superficial bladder carcinoma. Med Ultrason. 2011; 13(2):114-119.
33.	Kocakoc E, Kiris A, Orhan I, Poyraz AK, Artas H, Firdolas F. Detection of bladder tumors with 3-dimensional sonography and virtual sonographic cystoscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27(1):45-53.
34.	Chamie K, Ballon-Landa E, Daskivich TJ, et al. Treatment and survival in patients with recurrent high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. UROL. ONCOL.. 33(1):20.e9-17, 2015 Jan.
35.	Canter DJ, Revenig LM, Smith ZL, et al. Re-examination of the natural history of high-grade T1 bladder cancer using a large contemporary cohort. Int Braz J Urol. 40(2):172-8, 2014 Mar-Apr.
36.	Liedberg F, Hagberg O, Holmang S, et al. Local recurrence and progression of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Sweden: a population-based follow-up study. Scand J Urol. 49(4):290-5, 2015.
37.	Miyake M, Gotoh D, Shimada K, et al. Exploration of risk factors predicting outcomes for primary T1 high-grade bladder cancer and validation of the Spanish Urological Club for Oncological Treatment scoring model: Long-term follow-up experience at a single institute. Int J Urol. 22(6):541-7, 2015 Jun.
38.	Kim JY, Kim SH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Kim YH, Cho SH. MDCT urography for detecting recurrence after transurethral resection of bladder cancer: comparison of nephrographic phase with pyelographic phase. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(5):1021-7, 2014 Nov.
39.	Sadow CA, Silverman SG, O'Leary MP, Signorovitch JE. Bladder cancer detection with CT urography in an Academic Medical Center. Radiology. 2008;249(1):195-202.
40.	Takahashi N, Glockner JF, Hartman RP, et al. Gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance urography for upper urinary tract malignancy. J Urol. 183(4):1330-65, 2010 Apr.
41.	Hong X, Li T, Ling F, et al. Impact of surgical margin status on the outcome of bladder cancer treated by radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 8(10):17258-17269, 2017 Mar 07.
42.	Mallen E, Gil P, Gil MJ. Risk groups in bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 41(1):30-9, 2015 Jan-Feb.
43.	Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, van Tinteren H, et al. Follow-up after cystectomy: regularly scheduled, risk adjusted, or symptom guided? Patterns of recurrence, relapse presentation, and survival after cystectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 40(12):1677-85, 2014 Dec.
44.	Salama A, Abdelmaksoud AM, Shawki A, Abdelbary A, Aboulkassem H. Outcome of Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer After Radical Cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 14(1):e43-7, 2016 Feb.
45.	Reddy AV, Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, et al. Patterns of Failure After Radical Cystectomy for pT3-4 Bladder Cancer: Implications for Adjuvant Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 94(5):1031-9, 2016 Apr 01.
46.	Moschini M, Karnes RJ, Sharma V, et al. Patterns and prognostic significance of clinical recurrences after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A 20-year single center experience. Eur J Surg Oncol. 42(5):735-43, 2016 May.
47.	Perlis N, Turker P, Bostrom PJ, et al. Upper urinary tract and urethral recurrences following radical cystectomy: review of risk factors and outcomes between centres with different follow-up protocols. World J Urol. 31(1):161-7, 2013 Feb.
48.	Mitra AP, Alemozaffar M, Harris BN, Schuckman AK, Skinner EC, Daneshmand S. Outcomes after urothelial recurrence in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Urology. 84(6):1420-6, 2014 Dec.
49.	Balci U, Dogantekin E, Ozer K, Gorgel SN, Girgin C, Dincel C. Patterns, risks and outcomes of urethral recurrence after radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer; over 20 year single center experience. Int J Surg. 13:148-51, 2015 Jan.
50.	Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(26):4314-4320.
51.	Lodde M, Lacombe L, Friede J, Morin F, Saourine A, Fradet Y. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography with computed tomography for staging of urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):658-663.
52.	Vind-Kezunovic S, Bouchelouche K, Ipsen P, Hoyer S, Bell C, Bjerggaard Jensen J. Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Bladder Cancer using Maximum Standardised Uptake Value and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: Results from a High-volume Centre Including Long-term Follow-up. Eur Urol Focus. 5(1):90-96, 2019 01.
53.	Ha HK, Koo PJ, Kim SJ. Diagnostic Accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for Preoperative Lymph Node Staging in Newly Diagnosed Bladder Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [Review]. Oncology. 95(1):31-38, 2018.
54.	Anjos DA, Etchebehere EC, Ramos CD, Santos AO, Albertotti C, Camargo EE. 18F-FDG PET/CT delayed images after diuretic for restaging invasive bladder cancer. J Nucl Med. 48(5):764-70, 2007 May.
55.	Alongi P, Caobelli F, Gentile R, et al. Recurrent bladder carcinoma: clinical and prognostic role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(2):224-233, 2017 Feb.
56.	Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET used after initial treatment of cancer: comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 cohorts. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(5):831-837.
57.	van de Putte EEF, Vegt E, Mertens LS, et al. FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation of invasive bladder cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int Urol Nephrol. 49(9):1585-1591, 2017 Sep.
58.	Soubra A, Gencturk M, Froelich J, et al. FDG-PET/CT for Assessing the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Bladder Cancer Patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 16(5):360-364, 2018 10.
59.	Kollberg P, Almquist H, Blackberg M, et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography response evaluation can predict histological response at surgery after induction chemotherapy for oligometastatic bladder cancer. Scand J Urol. 51(4):308-313, 2017 Aug.
60.	Picchio M, Treiber U, Beer AJ, et al. Value of 11C-choline PET and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer: correlation with histopathologic findings. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):938-944.
61.	Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. The Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Bladder and Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210(3):W95-W109, 2018 Mar.
62.	Nishimura K, Fujiyama C, Nakashima K, Satoh Y, Tokuda Y, Uozumi J. The effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemo-radiation therapy on MRI staging in invasive bladder cancer: comparative study based on the pathological examination of whole layer bladder wall. Int Urol Nephrol. 2009; 41(4):869-875.
63.	Yoshida S, Koga F, Kawakami S, et al. Initial experience of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to assess therapeutic response to induction chemoradiotherapy against muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urology. 2010; 75(2):387-391.
64.	Jinzaki M, Matsumoto K, Kikuchi E, et al. Comparison of CT urography and excretory urography in the detection and localization of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196(5):1102-1109.
65.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.