Further research issues, such as patient compliance with oral mesna and other routes of mesna delivery, are discussed.

We conclude the prophylactic measure with mesna and hyperhydration to be effective enough to prevent cyclophosphamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis of early onset.

There is fair indirect but no direct evidence that oral mesna alone is equivalent to intravenous mesna or combined modality use.

Ongoing study in the appropriate use of mesna is needed to maximize its value as a uroprotective agent in the clinical setting.

Recommendations are now made according to the strength of available evidence on the proper usage of mesna as a protective agent against ifosfamide-induced urotoxicity.

In contrast, two of four consecutive patients who received mesna uroprophylaxis before allogeneic bone marrow transplantation had severe hemorrhagic cystitis for at least 2 weeks.

The within- and between-day accuracy and precision of the assay for BNP7787 and mesna was lower than 15%.

A critical review of the literature from 1966 to 1996 was undertaken on mesna administration via the intravenous, oral, or combined modality routes.

Mesna can be given orally to simplify outpatient ifosfamide therapy.

Mesna possibly has a toxic effect on bladder mucosa.

Mesna, given intravenously or orally, is superior to standard prophylaxis with vigorous hydration and alkalinization of urine.

Conclusion: MESNA plus volume expansion before and during contrast exposure was effective in this single-center study for preventing CIN compared to volume expansion alone.