BCG-Unresponsive 
Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder 
Cancer:  Developing Drugs 
and Biologics for Treatment  
Guidance for Industry 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Food and Drug Administration 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) 
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) 
 
February 2018 
Clinical/Medical 
   
BCG-Unresponsive 
Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder 
Cancer:  Developing Drugs 
and Biologics for Treatment  
Guidance for Industry 
 
 
 
Additional copies are available from: 
 
Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 
Food and Drug Administration 
10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Bldg., 4th Floor  
Silver Spring, MD  20993-0002  
Phone: 855-543-3784 or 301-796-3400; Fax: 301-431-6353; Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov 
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm 
 
and/or 
 
Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development  
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research 
Food and Drug Administration 
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 3128 
Silver Spring, MD  20993-0002 
Phone: 800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010; Email: ocod@fda.hhs.gov 
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Food and Drug Administration 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) 
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) 
 
February 2018 
Clinical/Medical 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 
II.  DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 2 
A.  Early Product Development ..........................................................................................................2 
B.  Late Phase Development ................................................................................................................2 
1. General Considerations ...................................................................................................................2 
2. Trial Population and Entry Criteria.................................................................................................3 
3. Randomization, Stratification, and Blinding ....................................................................................4 
4. Dose Selection ..................................................................................................................................5 
5. Single-Arm vs. Randomized, Controlled Trial Design .....................................................................5 
6. Efficacy Endpoints ............................................................................................................................5 
7. Trial Procedures and Timing of Assessments ..................................................................................7 
8. Endpoint Adjudication ......................................................................................................................7 
9. Statistical Considerations .................................................................................................................7 
10.  Accelerated Approval (Subpart H and Subpart E) Considerations .............................................7 
11.  Risk-Benefit Considerations ........................................................................................................8 
C.  Other Considerations .....................................................................................................................8 
1. Risk Management Considerations ....................................................................................................8 
2. Nonclinical Safety Considerations ...................................................................................................8 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 10 
 
  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
BCG-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer:  
Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment 
Guidance for Industry1 
 
 
 
This guidance represents the current thinking of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) on 
this topic.  It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public.  You 
can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.  
To discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA office responsible for this guidance as listed on the 
title page. 
 
 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION  
 
The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of drugs, including 
biologics, for the treatment of patients who have bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive 
nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).2  This guidance is intended for pharmaceutical 
sponsors, the academic community, and the public and provides a framework, based on current 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) thinking, to facilitate the development of drugs to treat 
this patient population.3  This guidance discusses pathological diagnosis and staging, risk 
stratification, and trial design, including assessment of appropriate clinical endpoints.  These 
issues were discussed at the FDA/American Urological Association Bladder Cancer Workshop 
held on May 6, 2013, and in published literature (Jarow et al. 2014; Jarow et al. 2015). 
 
Many of the general principles elucidated in this guidance also apply to development of drugs for 
other forms of NMIBC.  Nevertheless, the specific recommendations for trial design and 
endpoints contained herein may not necessarily apply, and sponsors should discuss with the FDA 
development plans for drugs intended to treat other forms of NMIBC or for muscle invasive, 
locally advanced, or metastatic bladder cancer.  
 
This guidance does not contain discussion of the general issues of statistical analysis or clinical 
trial design.  Those topics are addressed in the ICH guidances for industry E9 Statistical 
                                                 
1 This guidance has been prepared by the Division of Oncology Products 1 in the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research in cooperation with the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug 
Administration. 
 
2 For the purposes of this guidance, all references to drugs include both human drugs and biological products unless 
otherwise specified. 
 
3 In addition to consulting guidances, sponsors are encouraged to contact the division to discuss specific issues that 
arise during the development of drugs for the treatment of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.  
1  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
Principles for Clinical Trials and E10 Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical 
Trials, respectively.4 
 
In general, FDAs guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.  
Instead, guidances describe the Agencys current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only 
as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited.  The use of 
the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but 
not required. 
 
 
II.  DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
 
A.  Early Product Development 
 
Sponsors should conduct nonclinical studies to assess toxicity in animal models (see section 
II.C.2., Nonclinical Safety Considerations).  We also recommend that sponsors conduct 
nonclinical studies to demonstrate antitumor activity in NMIBC and to determine the optimal 
dose and schedule of the investigational drug.  Although six weekly instillations of intravesical 
therapy have become a standard dosing regimen for the treatment of patients with NMIBC, few 
data are available to support this approach.  Once sponsors complete the animal studies, we 
recommend that sponsors examine antitumor activity as well as the optimal dose and schedule in 
an early phase clinical trial.  One option is to assess antitumor activity in patients with marker 
lesions that can be safely left in place after resection of other areas of NMIBC.   
 
Sponsors developing investigational drugs for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC should also consider 
assessing antitumor activity in a small number of patients who are awaiting radical cystectomy 
for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.  With this approach, only a limited window of time is available 
for observation of antitumor activity because surgery should not be delayed.  In addition, these 
trials should not interfere with the use of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy whenever 
appropriate. 
 
B.  Late Phase Development 
 
1.  General Considerations 
 
Whether the patient has active disease at the time of trial enrollment is a key consideration for 
the recommended trial design and endpoints used to evaluate the effectiveness of an 
investigational drug treating NMIBC.  For patients without active disease (disease was resected 
at or before trial entry), FDA recommends a randomized, controlled trial design using a time-to-
event endpoint such as recurrence-free survival.  In contrast, patients with carcinoma in situ 
(CIS) at trial entry can be studied in either a randomized, controlled trial or a single-arm trial.  In 
the absence of pharmacologic intervention or cystectomy, BCG-unresponsive CIS (a type of 
NMIBC), with or without resected disease, will persist and progress.  In BCG-unresponsive 
                                                 
4 We update guidances periodically.  To make sure you have the most recent version of a guidance, check the FDA 
Drugs guidance web page at 
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.  
2  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
NMIBC, a single-arm clinical trial with complete response rate and duration of response as the 
primary endpoint can provide primary evidence of effectiveness to support a marketing 
application.  Sponsors can include patients with completely resected lesions and no evidence of 
CIS in these single-arm trials but should not include them in the evaluation of the primary 
efficacy endpoint.  However, sponsors should include these patients in the safety analysis.   
 
The use of systemic, as opposed to intravesical, therapy has been proposed for the treatment of 
patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.  Given the potential for the increased risks associated 
with the use of systemic therapies, sponsors should limit early phase trials to patients with few 
treatment options.  Patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC are appropriate because their 
treatment options are limited and the current alternative is cystectomy.   
 
2.  Trial Population and Entry Criteria 
 
Sponsors should specifically define the trial entry criteria in the trial protocol and document in 
detail the treatment history in the case report forms.  
 
For the purposes of this guidance, BCG-unresponsive disease is defined as being at least one of 
the following:  
 
  Persistent or recurrent CIS alone or with recurrent Ta/T1 (noninvasive papillary 
disease/tumor invades the subepithelial connective tissue) disease within 12 months of 
completion of adequate BCG therapy 
 
  Recurrent high-grade Ta/T1 disease within 6 months of completion of adequate BCG 
therapy 
 
  T1 high-grade disease at the first evaluation following an induction BCG course 
(Steinberg et al. 2016) 
 
In this context, adequate BCG therapy is defined as at least one of the following:  
 
  At least five of six doses of an initial induction course plus at least two of three doses of 
maintenance therapy 
 
  At least five of six doses of an initial induction course plus at least two of six doses of a 
second induction course 
 
Sponsors have some flexibility in the use of 6 and 12 months to define BCG-unresponsive 
NMIBC.  For example, a patient whose first assessment occurs 9 months (rather than 3 months) 
after initiation of his or her second course of BCG and who is found to have high-grade Ta/T1 
disease could be considered BCG-unresponsive.  Sponsors should specify this within the 
protocol and discuss this with the appropriate review division.  
 
Patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC are extremely unlikely to benefit from further therapy 
with BCG and represent a unique population for the study of new therapies.  The standard of care 
3  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
for these patients is radical cystectomy; however, many of these patients prefer to avoid 
cystectomy despite the potential risk of progression to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease.  
Patients who refuse cystectomy can enter into trials of investigational therapies.  Sponsors should 
inform all patients of the risk of tumor progression and/or recurrence.  Further, sponsors should 
follow these patients regularly so that patients with persistent or recurrent disease can 
discontinue investigational drugs and proceed to other therapies.   
 
Patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC may have recurred with either papillary disease or CIS 
or both, and their disease status at the time of trial entry may include completely resected 
disease, resected disease with CIS, or CIS alone.  The 2004 World Health 
Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification system is the preferred 
system for tumor grading.  This system categorizes tumors as papillary urothelial neoplasm of 
low malignant potential, low-grade, or high-grade (Miyamoto et al. 2010).  Before initiating the 
trial, sponsors should assess and discuss with the FDA the need for central pathology review of 
tissue and urine cytology to determine patient eligibility and patient outcomes. 
 
Because the methods of a urologist performing the cystoscopy can affect both patient eligibility 
and outcome, sponsors should ensure that all participating urologists perform and document their 
bladder examinations according to the protocol.  Investigators should fully characterize a 
patients disease status at trial entry.  Bladder mapping and random biopsies in patients with CIS 
should be performed before trial entry (Gudjonsson et al. 2012).  Sponsors should also obtain 
urine cytology.  The FDA considers use of biomarkers for further risk stratification exploratory 
at this time.  To fully define the extent of disease at trial entry, sponsors should have patients 
with T1 disease undergo resection of the base of the lesion (the biopsy should contain muscle 
fibers) before trial entry to ensure the absence of muscle-invasive disease.  Furthermore, for 
patients with high-risk disease undergoing transurethral resection of their bladder tumors, we 
recommend pelvic examination under anesthesia to rule out the presence of locally advanced 
disease.  Sponsors should use imaging by computerized tomography or magnetic resonance to 
further evaluate patients for the presence of locally advanced disease.   
 
Sponsors should collect data on the patients previous anticancer therapies, the dose and timing 
of administrations, and the patients responses to each therapy.  Sponsors should attempt to 
enroll patients who reflect the clinically relevant patient population in regard to age, gender, 
race, and ethnicity.  Sponsors should attempt to include women and patients of all races and 
ethnicities.  Because bladder cancer rarely occurs in children, a pediatric waiver request may be 
appropriate.   
 
3.  Randomization, Stratification, and Blinding 
 
Sponsors should stratify the analysis of randomized trials that include patients with CIS based on 
the type of disease (CIS alone or CIS with resected papillary disease) at trial enrollment.  
Sponsors should consider whether blinding is feasible in a randomized trial.  Sponsors should 
stratify the analysis of randomized trials that include patients with resected papillary disease by 
the type of disease (e.g., Ta, T1, and grade) at trial enrollment.  
 
4  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
4.  Dose Selection 
 
Dose selection is critical to an optimal risk-benefit balance and to the success of a late phase 
trial.  Systemic exposure following intravesical therapy should be assessed during initial clinical 
trials to evaluate and help mitigate safety concerns.  Sponsors should consider the safety profile, 
activity, and pharmacokinetics of systemically administered investigational drugs in patients 
with NMIBC.  These considerations help guide the selection of dose levels and dosing regimens 
for patients with NMIBC who may have a lower risk tolerance than patients with other 
indications for which the drug is being developed, such as metastatic disease.  These doses may 
be different than those used to treat metastatic disease. 
 
5.  Single-Arm vs. Randomized, Controlled Trial Design   
 
Single-arm trials are appropriate in clinical settings where a randomized, controlled trial is either 
unethical or not feasible.  Randomizing patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC to a placebo or 
minimally effective drug as a concurrent control raises ethical concerns.  Currently, single-arm 
trials are appropriate for assessment of therapies for patients with BCG-unresponsive disease 
(CIS with or without resected papillary disease) because, currently, no effective medical 
therapies are available and the only alternative is radical cystectomy.  Sponsors should use 
randomized trials in clinical settings in which an active or placebo control or a time to event 
endpoint is appropriate.  If effective therapies become available in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC, a 
randomized trial may be appropriate.  
 
6.  Efficacy Endpoints 
 
The primary efficacy endpoint in single-arm trials of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC 
should be the complete response rate in patients with CIS.  Sponsors should consider the 
complete response rate in the context of the duration of response.  Complete response rate can 
only be determined in those patients who have disease at trial entry (patients with CIS) with or 
without resected papillary disease.  Because partial response has not been defined in this disease 
setting, sponsors should not use it as a response criterion.  Sponsors should discuss with the 
appropriate review division the minimum duration of follow-up (and, thus, the minimum 
duration of response) before submitting an application. 
 
For single-arm trials of patients with BCG-unresponsive disease, the FDA defines a complete 
response as at least one of the following: 
 
  Negative cystoscopy and negative (including atypical) urine cytology 
 
  Positive cystoscopy with biopsy-proven benign or low-grade NMIBC and negative 
cytology 
 
For intravesical therapies without systemic toxicity, the FDA includes, in the definition of a 
complete response, negative cystoscopy with malignant urine cytology if cancer is found in the 
upper tract or prostatic urethra and random bladder biopsies are negative. 
 
5  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
Intravesical instillation does not deliver the investigational drug to the upper tract or prostatic 
urethra.  Therefore, the development of disease in these areas cannot be attributed to a lack of 
activity of the investigational drug.  Thus, sponsors can consider patients with new malignant 
lesions of the upper tract or prostatic urethra who have received intravesical therapy to have 
achieved a complete response in the primary analysis.  However, sponsors should record these 
lesions and conduct sensitivity analyses in which these patients are not considered to have 
achieved a complete response.  
 
Systemic therapies are expected to have a treatment effect throughout the urinary tract.  
Therefore, a patient who received systemic therapy cannot be considered to have a complete 
response if the patient has a malignant lesion(s) in the upper tract or prostatic urethra.  
 
For the purposes of determining the duration of a complete response, the FDA defines a 
recurrence as findings on follow-up that no longer meet the above definition for a complete 
response.  The protocol should provide a plan for the evaluation of patients with suspicious urine 
cytology.  Suspicious cytology does not include the presence of atypical cells.  This plan should 
specify how a suspicious urine cytology will affect the initial definition of complete response and 
the duration of complete response.  For example, the plan may include repeat cytologies or 
random bladder biopsies.  Regardless of the prespecified plan, all investigators should evaluate 
suspicious urine cytology in the same manner.   
 
The goal of therapy in patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC is to avoid cystectomy.  The 
development of low-risk/low-grade papillary lesions does not affect the decisions regarding 
cystectomy because these patients can be treated with transurethral resection alone.  Therefore, 
for the purposes of these trials, sponsors should consider patients with low-risk/low-grade lesions 
to have achieved a complete response and to have maintained this response (following resection 
of these low risk/low-grade papillary lesions) in the primary analysis.  However, sponsors should 
record these lesions and conduct sensitivity analyses in which these patients are not considered to 
have achieved a complete response.  
 
Although delay in radical cystectomy is considered a direct patient benefit, the variations in 
patient and health care provider preferences can confound the interpretation of this endpoint in 
randomized trials and particularly in single-arm trials.  Nevertheless, sponsors should collect 
these data, which may provide supportive evidence of effectiveness.  In addition, sponsors 
should assess disease progression to muscle-invasive and/or metastatic disease.  
 
In general, sponsors should use the complete response rate as the primary endpoint for treatment 
of CIS.  However, the trial design should prespecify whether patients with CIS who do not 
achieve a complete response at their 3-month assessments should discontinue the investigational 
drug(s) because of the risk of progression.  Sponsors should consider the patients disease 
history, type of disease present at 3 months (e.g., T1), and the mechanism of action of the 
investigational drug(s).  At 3 months, patients with BCG-unresponsive CIS at study entry who 
are found to have new, T1 high-grade disease with or without CIS and patients with persistent 
CIS who did not have a disease-free interval should discontinue the investigational drug(s).  
Sponsors should discuss these issues with the FDA during the development of the trial design. 
 
6  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
7.  Trial Procedures and Timing of Assessments 
 
During the conduct of a clinical trial, patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC should be 
followed every 3 months for 2 years, then every 6 months for 2 years, and then annually with 
cystoscopy, directed biopsies, and urine cytology.  The FDA recommends random bladder 
biopsies at a specific time point(s) (e.g., 6 months, 18 months, etc.), but these are not required.  
The protocol should address the number of random biopsies and the biopsy sites. 
 
8.  Endpoint Adjudication 
 
Sponsors should consult with the appropriate FDA review division regarding the need for central 
pathology review of biopsy specimens and/or cytology for all patients or a representative sample.  
 
9.  Statistical Considerations 
 
For single-arm trials of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC in patients with CIS that use 
complete response rate as the primary endpoint, the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence 
interval around the observed response rate should rule out a clinically unimportant complete 
response rate.  The median duration of complete response is also important.  A high complete 
response rate is not meaningful if the response duration is short.  The sponsor should discuss 
with the appropriate review division the minimum duration of response at the time of NDA or 
BLA submission.  Patients participating in the trial should continue to be followed for the 
development of a complete response and for duration of complete response.  
 
Sponsors can use either early phase evidence of effect size or data from historical controls to 
calculate the sample size of the single-arm trial; however, the FDA does not require or 
recommend a prespecified response rate.  The natural history of CIS is well understood, and the 
complete response rate is negligible in the absence of therapy.   
 
10.  Accelerated Approval (Subpart H and Subpart E) Considerations 
 
A development program that assesses complete response rate in a single-arm trial may be 
appropriate for regular approval, or it may require a confirmatory trial after approval.5  A 
confirmatory, randomized trial in the same population often is not possible (e.g., patients with 
BCG-unresponsive NMIBC).  Sponsors may be able to provide confirmatory evidence of 
effectiveness in a different patient population.  Potential trial designs include randomized trials 
comparing the investigational drug to BCG in treatment-naive high-risk disease or as add-on 
therapy to BCG (BCG plus/minus investigational drug) in patients who recur after an initial 
induction course of BCG.  The need for a confirmatory trial and its design can be discussed at a 
separate, end-of-phase 2 meeting held during the conduct of a single-arm trial.  On occasion, 
long-term follow-up from the same trial can satisfy a confirmatory study obligation under 
accelerated approval.  
 
                                                 
5 21 CFR part 314, subpart H, and part 601, subpart E. 
7  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
11.  Risk-Benefit Considerations 
 
The approval of a marketing application is based on a favorable risk-benefit assessment.  The 
key elements in the planning and conduct of these trials are outlined above.  These issues were 
discussed at the FDA/American Urological Association Bladder Cancer Workshop held on May 
6, 2013.  The International Bladder Cancer Group addressed similar issues in a recent publication 
(Kamat et al. 2016).  
 
For therapies that have greater toxicity (e.g., systemic therapies), substantially greater efficacy 
might be needed to achieve an overall favorable risk-benefit assessment.  Sponsors of clinical 
trials using either intravesical or systemic therapy should meet with the FDA to discuss trial 
design details. 
 
C.  Other Considerations 
 
1.  Risk Management Considerations 
 
The FDA cannot make a decision concerning a risk management plan before reviewing the data 
included in a biologics license application or new drug application.  Sponsors should provide a 
plan to assess the long-term outcomes of patients receiving the investigational drug.  For 
example, a long-term study or trial to assess bladder capacity may be needed if there was a signal 
in premarketing studies that the investigational drug caused bladder fibrosis.   
 
2.  Nonclinical Safety Considerations 
 
Before sponsors initiate clinical trials in patients with NMIBC, we recommend that sponsors use 
nonclinical studies to optimize the dose and schedule of intravesical drugs.  A sponsors choice 
and use of nonclinical models will vary with the investigational drug.  The sponsor should 
discuss this with the appropriate review division.  Sponsors also can use nonclinical studies to 
ensure that systemic therapies are active at the mucosal surface of the bladder and to justify the 
potential risks associated with systemic therapies.  For drugs intended for intravesical 
administration, sponsors can use the extent of systemic exposure in nonclinical studies following 
intravesical administration to determine the need for evaluation of systemic toxicity.  If systemic 
exposure is low, histological evaluation may be limited to locally exposed tissues.  Similarly, if 
systemic exposure of the active substance is equivalent to or less than that of an approved route 
of administration for the same active substance, histological evaluation also may be limited to 
locally exposed tissues.  The recommendations for and timing of additional nonclinical studies 
depends upon the available nonclinical and clinical data, the nature of the toxicities observed, 
and the patient population (e.g., more advanced NMIBC such as BCG-unresponsive NMIBC).  
Sponsors should discuss this with the appropriate review division before conducting a clinical 
trial using either a systemic or intravesicular drug in patients with NMIBC.  
 
8  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
For recommendations on the substance and scope of nonclinical information needed to support 
clinical trials for cell therapy and gene therapy products, see the guidances for industry 
Preclinical Assessment of Investigational Cellular and Gene Therapy Products, Clinical 
Considerations for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines, and Recommendations for Microbial Vectors 
Used for Gene Therapy.6 
 
                                                 
6 These guidances are available on the FDAs Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances web page at 
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandG
eneTherapy/default.htm.  
9  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
REFERENCES 
 
Gudjonsson S, Blackberg M, Chebil G, Jahnson S, Olsson H, Bendahl PO, Mansson W, and 
Liedberg F, 2012, The Value of Bladder Mapping and Prostatic Urethra Biopsies for Detection 
of Carcinoma in Situ, BJU Int, 110(2 Pt 2):E4145. 
 
Jarow JP, Lerner SP, Kluetz PG, Liu K, Sridhara R, Bajorin D, Chang S, Dinney CP, Groshen S, 
Morton RA, ODonnell M, Quale DZ, Schoenberg M, Seigne J, and Vikram B, 2014, Clinical 
Trial Design for the Development of New Therapies for Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer:  
Report of a Food and Drug Administration and American Urological Association Public 
Workshop, Urology, 83(2):262264.  
 
Jarow J, Maher VE, Tang S, Ibrahim A, Kim G, Sridhara R, and Pazdur R, 2015, Development 
of Systemic and Topical Drugs to Treat Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer, Bladder Cancer, 
1(2):133136.  
 
Kamat A, Sylvester R, Bohle A, Palou J, Lamm D, Brausi M, Soloway M, Persad R, Buckley R, 
Colombel M, and Witjes J, 2016, Definitions, End Points, and Clinical Trial Designs for Non-
Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer 
Group, J Clin Oncol 34(16): 19351944. 
 
Miyamoto H, Miller JS, Fajardo DA, Lee TK, Netto GJ, and Epstein JL, 2010, Non-Invasive 
Papillary Urothelial Neoplasms:  The 2004 WHO/ISUP Classification System, Pathol Int, 
60(1):18. 
 
Steinberg RL, Thomas LJ, Mott SL, and ODonnell MA, 2016, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) 
Treatment Failures with Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Data-Driven Definition of 
BCG Unresponsive Disease, Bladder Cancer, 2:215224. 
10