Analysis and adherence to guidelines of mobile health application for bladder cancer, where are we?

Introduction: Mobile health applications (MHAs) represent a tool to assist patients affected by different disease including bladder cancer (BCa), although the scientific quality and adherence to guidelines are not yet addressed.
Materials and methods: On September 2024, we conducted a search in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. We reviewed all mobile apps from Apple App Store and Google Play Store for BC and evaluated their usage in screening, prevention, management, and adherence to EAU guidelines.
Results: In total 10 MHA were reviewed. All MHAs are geared towards the patient and provide information about diagnoses and treatment of BC. The mean score was 3.29 in Engagement, 3.26 in Functionality, 3.06 in Aesthetics, 3.13 in Information, and 3 in Subjective quality respectively. MHAs reported low and medium adherence to EAU guidelines.
Conclusions: MHAs provide different services in many medical fields, including BCa. There are several drawbacks regarding scientific validation, content, and quality. Future research is necessary to promote new user designed, and high-quality apps.

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68:394-424. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70:313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

Sridhar SS. Evolving Treatment of Advanced Urothelial Cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2017; 13:309-315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2017.022137

Becker REN, Meyer AR, Brant A, et al. Clinical Restaging and Tumor Sequencing are Inaccurate Indicators of Response to Neoadjuvant

Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:364-371.

Knowles MA, Hurst CD. Molecular biology of bladder cancer: new insights into pathogenesis and clinical diversity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015; 15:25-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3817

Barone B, Napolitano L, Reccia P, et al. Preoperative Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio as Potential Predictor of Bladder Cancer: A Monocentric Retrospective Study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022; 58:1490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101490

Brooks NA, O'Donnell MA. Combination Intravesical Therapy. Urol Clin North Am. 2020; 47:83-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2019.09.010

Alfred Witjes J, Max Bruins H, Carrión A, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic

Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2023 Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2024;85:17-31. Erratum in: Eur Urol. 2024; 85:e180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.002

Tagawa ST, Balar AV, Petrylak DP, et al. TROPHY-U-01: a Phase II Open-Label Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Checkpoint Inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2474-2485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03489

Cirillo L, Manfredi C, Barone B, et al. Mobile health applications in kidney stone disease management: A reliable support for patients? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2023; 95:11076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2023.11076

Fusco GM, Cirillo L, Abate M, et al. Male infertility, what Mobile Health Applications "know": quality analysis and adherence to

European Association of Urology Guidelines. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:470-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.4.470

Napolitano L, Cirillo L, Fusco GM, et al. Premature ejaculation in the era of mobile health application: A current analysis and evaluation of adherence to EAU guidelines. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022;94:328-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.328

Napolitano L, Fusco GM, Cirillo L, et al. Erectile dysfunction and mobile phone applications: Quality, content and adherence to European Association guidelines on male sexual dysfunction. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:211-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.211

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372:n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Weiss K, Abimbola O, Mueller D, et al. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes of a Mobile Health Tool for Radical Cystectomy

Recovery. J Urol. 2024; 211:266-275. 16. Tolstrup LK, Als AB, Carus A, et al. The iBLAD app protocol - a national, exploratory study on a multimodality smartphone app in bladder cancer for better understanding symptoms, quality of life and need for supportive care. Acta Oncol. 2023; 62:329-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2023.2194031

Huelster HL, Zemp L, Turner K, et al. Mobile Postoperative Symptom Intervention Tool and Biometric Monitoring After Radical Cystectomy: Pilot Study Evaluating Feasibility, Usability, and Potential Utility. J Urol. 2023; 209:410-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003048

Metcalf M, Glazyrine V, Glavin K, et al. The Feasibility of a Health Care Application in the Treatment of Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy. J Urol. 2019; 201:902-908. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000050

Smittenaar P, Walker AK, McGill S, et al. Harnessing citizen science through mobile phone technology to screen for immunohistochemical biomarkers in bladder cancer. Br J Cancer. 2018; 119:220-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0156-0

Beardo P, Pinto R, Ayerra H, et al. Optimizing treatment for non muscle-invasive bladder cancer with an app. Actas Urol Esp (Engl

Ed). 2022; 46:230-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2021.12.002

Catto JWF, Downing A, Mason S, et al. Quality of Life After Bladder Cancer: A Cross-sectional Survey of Patient-reported Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:621-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.032

Barone B, Napolitano L, Reccia P, et al. Advances in Urinary Diversion: From Cutaneous Ureterostomy to Orthotopic Neobladder

Reconstruction-A Comprehensive Review. J Pers Med. 2024; 14:392.

Mannino RG, Arconada Alvarez SJ, Greenleaf M, et al. Navigating the complexities of mobile medical app development from idea to launch, a guide for clinicians and biomedical researchers. BMC Med. 2023; 21:109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02833-7

Siegler AJ, Knox J, Bauermeister JA, et al. Mobile app development in health research: pitfalls and solutions. Mhealth. 2021; 7:32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-19-263

Deniz-Garcia A, Fabelo H, Rodriguez-Almeida AJ, et al. Quality, Usability, and Effectiveness of mHealth Apps and the Role of Artificial Intelligence: Current Scenario and Challenges. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e44030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/44030

Giebel GD, Speckemeier C, Schrader NF, et al. Quality Assessment of mHealth Apps: A Scoping Review. Front. Health Serv. 2024;4:1372871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1372871

Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, et al. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR

Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 3:e27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3422

Alfred Witjes J, Max Bruins H, Carrión A, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-Invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2023 Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2024;85:17-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.016

Oakley-Girvan I, Yunis R, Longmire M, Ouillon JS. What Works Best to Engage Participants in Mobile App Interventions and EHealth:

A Scoping Review. Telemed. J. E Health 2022; 28:768.

Amor-García MÁ, Collado-Borrell R, Escudero-Vilaplana V, et al. Assessing Apps for Patients with Genitourinary Tumors Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2020;8:e17609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/17609

Raphael J, Trudeau ME, Chan K. Outcome of patients with pregnancy during or after breast cancer: a review of the recent literature.

Curr Oncol. 2015;22:S8-S18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2015.05.052