title: Photodynamic diagnosis in urology: state of the art.
abstract: High grade NMIBC remains a treatment challenge for urologists. WLC is widely regarded as the gold standard for detection and TUR. PDD may offer superiority to WLC in terms of detection, recurrence free survival and overall cost, but the current data must be scrutinized closely. Nearly all trials comparing PDD to WLC have shown an advantage in overall tumor detection with photodynamics and thus may lead to better treatment strategies in these patients. This review will focus on the results of a multitude of studies where PDD in combination with various photosensitizers was employed in the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. The equipment, techniques and cost of these modalities will also be discussed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller, School of Medicine, Miami 33136, USA. janiceangelasantos@gmail.com
authors.forename: Janice A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Santos Cortes
authors.forename: Jeffrey
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gahan
authors.forename: Mark S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Soloway
mesh_terms: D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003558:Cystoscopy; D018450:Disease Progression; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D006801:Humans; D010778:Photochemotherapy; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents / Q000009:adverse effects; D012015:Reference Standards; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy; D014570:Urologic Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy; D014572:Urology / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends*
chemical_list: D017319:Photosensitizing Agents