1
|
Yamane H, Morizane S, Honda M, Muraoka K, Oono H, Isoyama T, Ono K, Sejima T, Kadowaki H, Takenaka A. Preoperative risk stratification models after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A multi-center study. Int J Urol 2024. [PMID: 39140229 DOI: 10.1111/iju.15560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2024] [Accepted: 07/31/2024] [Indexed: 08/15/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We investigated preoperative patient factors associated with prognosis in 263 bladder cancer (BC) patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). We also developed new risk stratification models for prognosis. METHODS This retrospective study included patients treated at Tottori University Hospital and affiliated hospitals between January 2010 and December 2019. The relationship between preoperative patient factors and overall recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was analyzed. The modified Glasgow prognosis score (mGPS) was calculated using serum albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Statistical analyses included the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), mGPS, and clinical tumor stage independently predicted CSS in multivariate analysis. A new risk stratification model included ECOG-PS ≥2, clinical tumor stage ≥3, serum albumin <3.5 g/dL, and serum CRP >0.5 mg/dL. Risk groups were defined as 0 factors (low risk), 1-2 factors (intermediate risk), and 3-4 factors (high risk). High-risk patients showed significantly poorer 3-year cancer-free survival: 86.9% (low risk), 76.7% (intermediate risk), and 50.0% (high risk). CONCLUSIONS ECOG-PS, clinical tumor stage, and mGPS are predictive of poor cancer-free survival post-RC for BC. Our model offers the potential for prognostic prediction in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroshi Yamane
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| | - Shuichi Morizane
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| | - Masashi Honda
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| | - Kuniyasu Muraoka
- Department of Urology, Tottori Prefectural Central Hospital, Tottori, Tottori, Japan
| | - Hirofumi Oono
- Department of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Matsue Hospital, Matsue, Shimane, Japan
| | - Tadahiro Isoyama
- Department of Urology, Yonago Medical Center, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| | - Koji Ono
- Department of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Tottori Hospital, Tottori, Tottori, Japan
| | - Takehiro Sejima
- Department of Urology, Matsue City Hospital, Matsue, Shimane, Japan
| | | | - Atsushi Takenaka
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Netsch C, Filmar S, Hook S, Rosenbaum C, Gross AJ, Becker B. [Follow-up after urinary diversion]. UROLOGIE (HEIDELBERG, GERMANY) 2024:10.1007/s00120-024-02401-8. [PMID: 39088083 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-024-02401-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/01/2024] [Indexed: 08/02/2024]
Abstract
Radical cystectomy is currently the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Different parts of the small and large intestines can be utilized for continent and incontinent urinary diversion. The postoperative follow-up after urinary diversion should consider functional, metabolic and oncological aspects. The functional follow-up of (continent) urinary diversion includes stenosis, emptying disorders or incontinence. The oncological follow-up should focus on the detection of local, urethral and upper tract recurrences as well as distant metastases. As 90% of the tumor recurrences occur during the first 3 years, a close follow-up should be carried out during this period. Metabolic disturbances, such as vitamin B12 and bile acid deficits, acidosis and disorders of calcium metabolism can also occur during long-term follow-up. The metabolic follow-up should consider the metabolic consequences of the parts of the intestines utilized for the urinary diversion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Netsch
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland.
| | - Simon Filmar
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Sophia Hook
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Clemens Rosenbaum
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Andreas J Gross
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Benedikt Becker
- Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Contieri R, Pichler R, del Giudice F, Marcq G, Gallioli A, Albisinni S, Soria F, d’Andrea D, Krajewski W, Carrion DM, Mari A, van Rhijn BWG, Moschini M, Pradere B, Mertens LS. Variation in Follow-Up after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer-An Inventory Roundtable and Literature Review. J Clin Med 2024; 13:2637. [PMID: 38731165 PMCID: PMC11084596 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2024] [Revised: 04/23/2024] [Accepted: 04/28/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer can be divided into oncological and functional surveillance. It remains unclear how follow-up after RC should ideally be scheduled. The aim of this report was to gain insight into the organization of follow-up after RC in Europe, for which we conducted a roundtable inventory within the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group. Methods: An inventory semi-structured survey was performed among urologists of the EAU Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Cancer working group to describe the organization of follow-up. The surveys were analyzed using a deductive approach. Similarities and differences in follow-up after RC for bladder cancer were described. Results: The survey included 11 urologists from six different European countries. An institutional follow-up scheme was used by six (55%); three (27%) used a national or international guideline, and two (18%) indicated that there was no defined follow-up scheme. Major divergent aspects included the time points of follow-up, the frequency, and the end of follow-up. Six centers (55%) adopted a risk-adapted follow-up approach tailored to (varying) patient and tumor characteristics. Laboratory tests and CT scans were used in all cases; however, the intensity and frequency varied. Functional follow-up overlapped with oncological follow-up in terms of frequency and duration. Patient-reported outcome measures were only used by two (18%) urologists. Conclusions: Substantial variability exists across European centers regarding the follow-up after RC for bladder cancer. This highlights the need for an international analysis focusing on its organization and content as well as on opportunities to improve patients' needs during follow-up after RC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Contieri
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, 20090 Milan, Italy
| | - Renate Pichler
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Innsbruck, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Francesco del Giudice
- Department of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Gautier Marcq
- Urology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, F-59000 Lille, France
| | - Andrea Gallioli
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Simone Albisinni
- Urology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Tor Vergata University Hospital, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Soria
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino School of Medicine, 10126 Torino, Italy
| | - David d’Andrea
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria;
| | - Wojciech Krajewski
- Department of Minimally Invasive Robotic Urology Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Diego M. Carrion
- Department of Urology, Torrejon University Hospital, 28850 Madrid, Spain
| | - Andrea Mari
- Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, 50121 Florence, Italy
| | - Bas W. G. van Rhijn
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- European Association of Urology, Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Guidelines Panel, 6803 AA Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy;
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology UROSUD, La Croix Du Sud Hospital, F-31130 Quint-Fonsegrives, France
| | - Laura S. Mertens
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yasujima R, Nakanishi Y, Hirose K, Umino Y, Okubo N, Kataoka M, Yajima S, Masuda H. Control of bleeding from a recurrent tumor at a uretero-ileal anastomosis by electrocoagulation via an ileal conduit. IJU Case Rep 2023; 6:334-336. [PMID: 37928299 PMCID: PMC10622223 DOI: 10.1002/iju5.12613] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Bladder cancer is characterized by spatial and temporal recurrence in the urinary tract. We describe a case of recurrence at a uretero-ileal anastomosis after radical cystectomy and nephroureterectomy. It was difficult to control bleeding from the tumor, but hemostasis was achieved. Case presentation A 73-year-old man with a history of radical cystectomy and reconstruction of the ileal conduit and right nephroureterectomy was diagnosed with recurrence at the uretero-ileal anastomosis site. Bleeding from the tumor could not be controlled by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patient underwent coagulation via an ileal conduit approach using a rigid scope and bipolar electrocautery, which is usually a modality for transurethral resection. Conclusion This is the first report in which a modality normally used for transurethral resection was used to control bleeding in a patient with an ileal conduit. This application is useful in cases open surgery or additional irradiation might be difficult.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rikuto Yasujima
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | | | - Kohei Hirose
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | - Yosuke Umino
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | - Naoya Okubo
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | - Madoka Kataoka
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | - Shugo Yajima
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| | - Hitoshi Masuda
- Department of Urology National Cancer Center Hospital East Chiba Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Walz S, Pollehne P, Geng R, Schneider J, Maas M, Aicher WK, Stenzl A, Amend B, Harland N. A Protocol for Organoids from the Urine of Bladder Cancer Patients. Cells 2023; 12:2188. [PMID: 37681920 PMCID: PMC10487035 DOI: 10.3390/cells12172188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2023] [Revised: 08/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2023] Open
Abstract
This study investigates the feasibility of establishing urine-derived tumor organoids from bladder cancer (BC) patients as an alternative to tissue-derived organoids. BC is one of the most common cancers worldwide and current diagnostic methods involve invasive procedures. Here, we investigated the potential of using urine samples, which contain exfoliated tumor cells, to generate urine-derived BC organoids (uBCOs). Urine samples from 29 BC patients were collected and cells were isolated and cultured in a three-dimensional matrix. The establishment and primary expansion of uBCOs were successful in 83% of the specimens investigated. The culturing efficiency of uBCOs was comparable to cancer tissue-derived organoids. Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence to characterize the uBCOs exhibited similar expressions of BC markers compared to the parental tumor. These findings suggest that urine-derived BC organoids hold promise as a non-invasive tool for studying BC and evaluating therapeutic responses. This approach could potentially minimize the need for invasive procedures and provide a platform for personalized drug screening. Further research in this area may lead to improved diagnostic and treatment strategies for BC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Walz
- Department of Urology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; (S.W.); (N.H.)
| | - Paul Pollehne
- Center for Medical Research, University of Tuebingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ruizhi Geng
- Center for Medical Research, University of Tuebingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Johannes Schneider
- Center for Medical Research, University of Tuebingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Moritz Maas
- Department of Urology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; (S.W.); (N.H.)
| | - Wilhelm K. Aicher
- Center for Medical Research, University of Tuebingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; (S.W.); (N.H.)
| | - Bastian Amend
- Department of Urology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; (S.W.); (N.H.)
| | - Niklas Harland
- Department of Urology, Tuebingen University Hospital, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; (S.W.); (N.H.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhang Y, Wang Z, Yang X, Zhao Q, He L. The influence of serum sodium concentration on prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinoma treated by radical cystectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101:e31973. [PMID: 36596074 PMCID: PMC9803414 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000031973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Serum sodium concentration has been found to be associated with poor survival in many solid tumors. This study investigated the effect of basal serum sodium concentration on prognostic in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). MIBC patients with histologically proven urothelial carcinoma treated by RC were retrospectively reviewed. According to the optimal cutoff value, we divided the patients into 2 groups: high-serum sodium concentration group (≥140 mmol/L, n = 39) and low-serum sodium concentration group (<140 mmol/L, n = 32). Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and the significance was examined by the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression for OS was performed for lymphatic metastasis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and tumor size. A total of 71 MIBC patients (60 males and 11 females) were included who underwent cystectomy between 2014 and 2018. The patients' ages at the time of operation ranged from 44 to 86 years (mean, 66.66 years). Patients' serum sodium concentration <140 mmol/L had shorter median OS (1224 days (HR: 2.454 [95% CI, 1.083-5.561; P = .031]). In multivariate analysis, lower serum sodium concentration was significantly associated with worse OS after adjusted (adjusted HR: 2.422 [95% CI, 1.055-5.561; P = .037]). Serum sodium concentration <140 mmol/L was independently associated with a poorer prognosis in patients with MIBC used who underwent RC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Zhang
- College of Life Sciences and Biopharmaceuticals, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Zuojun Wang
- Pharmacy Department, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
| | - Xue Yang
- College of Life Sciences and Biopharmaceuticals, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Qingchun Zhao
- Pharmacy Department, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
| | - Long He
- Organ Transplantation Center, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
- *Correspondence: Long He, Organ Transplantation Center, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, No.5, Guangrong Street, Heping District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, 110003, P.R. China (e-mail: )
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Devlin CM, Molokwu CN, Wood B, Yuen KK, Singh R, Chahal R. Routine urethroscopic surveillance is of limited value after radical cystectomy: a single centre retrospective cohort analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2022; 54:3139-3144. [PMID: 35951254 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03312-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The incidence of urethral recurrence (UR) following radical cystectomy (RC) for transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder varies between 1.5 and 6%. There is debate over the timing of urethrectomy for patients undergoing RC. We evaluated the requirement for a formal surveillance programme for UR in patients after RC. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent RC between 2006 and 2019. Females, non-TCC cases and patients with neo-bladder diversions were excluded. Histological prostatic urethral involvement at the time of RC was deemed high risk for UR. Carcinoma in-situ, multifocal tumours and bladder neck involvement were deemed intermediate risk and the absence of the above features was considered low risk. RESULTS 417 patients underwent RC, 300 cases remained after exclusion criteria were applied. 42 patients were high-risk for UR, 102 patients were intermediate risk and 156 were low risk. Of the 300, 24 urethrectomy cases were recorded. Six cases of UR occurred. Of these, 5 presented with symptoms and only 1 case was detected by surveillance. Only 1 low-risk patient developed UR, 7 years post RC. Using our risk stratification, UR rates for high, intermediate and low-risk cohorts were 25%, 10.5% and 0.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our cohort, routine surveillance for all patients with annual urethroscopy was of limited value in detecting UR post RC. Staged Urethrectomy for high and intermediate-risk patients, and patient counselling in self-identification of recurrence symptoms for low-risk patients will improve the early detection of UR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Conor M Devlin
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Chidi N Molokwu
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.
| | - Benjamin Wood
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Keith K Yuen
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Rajindra Singh
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Rohit Chahal
- Department of Urology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pre-clinical and clinical studies on the role of RBM3 in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: longitudinal expression, transcriptome-level effects and modulation of chemosensitivity. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:131. [PMID: 35109796 PMCID: PMC8811987 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-09168-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2021] [Accepted: 12/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The response to neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is impaired in up to 50% of patients due to chemoresistance, with no predictive biomarkers in clinical use. The proto-oncogene RNA-binding motif protein 3 (RBM3) has emerged as a putative modulator of chemotherapy response in several solid tumours but has a hitherto unrecognized role in MIBC. Methods RBM3 protein expression level in tumour cells was assessed via immunohistochemistry in paired transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) specimens, cystectomy specimens and lymph node metastases from a consecutive cohort of 145 patients, 65 of whom were treated with NAC. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to estimate the impact of RBM3 expression on time to recurrence (TTR), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) in strata according to NAC treatment. The effect of siRNA-mediated silencing of RBM3 on chemosensitivity was examined in RT4 and T24 human bladder carcinoma cells in vitro. Cellular functions of RBM3 were assessed using RNA-sequencing and gene ontology analysis, followed by investigation of cell cycle distribution using flow cytometry. Results RBM3 protein expression was significantly higher in TURB compared to cystectomy specimens but showed consistency between primary tumours and lymph node metastases. Patients with high-tumour specific RBM3 expression treated with NAC had a significantly reduced risk of recurrence and a prolonged CSS and OS compared to NAC-untreated patients. In high-grade T24 carcinoma cells, which expressed higher RBM3 mRNA levels compared to RT4 cells, RBM3 silencing conferred a decreased sensitivity to cisplatin and gemcitabine. Transcriptomic analysis revealed potential involvement of RBM3 in facilitating cell cycle progression, in particular G1/S-phase transition, and initiation of DNA replication. Furthermore, siRBM3-transfected T24 cells displayed an accumulation of cells residing in the G1-phase as well as altered levels of recognised regulators of G1-phase progression, including Cyclin D1/CDK4 and CDK2. Conclusions The presented data highlight the potential value of RBM3 as a predictive biomarker of chemotherapy response in MIBC, which could, if prospectively validated, improve treatment stratification of patients with this aggressive disease. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-09168-7.
Collapse
|
9
|
Li Z, Jiang L, Zhang Z, Deng M, Wei W, Tang H, Guo S, Ye Y, Yao K, Liu Z, Zhou F. Long noncoding RNAs to predict postoperative recurrence in bladder cancer and to develop a new molecular classification system. Cancer Med 2021; 11:539-552. [PMID: 34816620 PMCID: PMC8729057 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2021] [Revised: 10/06/2021] [Accepted: 10/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reliable molecular markers are much needed for early prediction of recurrence in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients. We aimed to build a long-noncoding RNA (lncRNA) signature to improve recurrence prediction and lncRNA-based molecular classification of MIBC. METHODS LncRNAs of 320 MIBC patients from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database were analyzed, and a nomogram was established. A molecular classification system was created, and immunotherapy and chemotherapy response predictions, immune score analysis, immune infiltration analysis, and mutational data analysis were conducted. Survival analysis validation was also performed. RESULTS An eight-lncRNA signature classifed the patients into high- and low-risk subgroups, and these groups had significantly different (disease-free survival) DFS. The ability of the eight-lncRNA signature to make an accurate prognosis was tested using a validation dataset from our samples. The nomogram achieved a C-index of 0.719 (95% CI, 0.674-0.764). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis indicated the superior prognostic accuracy of nomograms for DFS prediction (0.76, 95% CI, 0.697-0.807). Further, the four clusters (median DFS = 11.8, 15.3, 17.9, and 18.9 months, respectively) showed a high frequency of TTN (cluster 1), fibroblast growth factor receptor-3 (cluster 2), TP53 (cluster 3), and TP53 mutations (cluster 4), respectively. They were enriched with M2 macrophages (cluster 1), CD8+ T cells (cluster 2), M0 macrophages (cluster 3), and M0 macrophages (cluster 4), respectively. Clusters 2 and 3 demonstrated potential sensitivity to immunotherapy and insensitivity to chemotherapy, whereas cluster 4 showed potential insensitivity to immunotherapy and sensitivity to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS The eight-lncRNA signature risk model may be a reliable prognostic signature for MIBC, which provides new insights into prediction of recurrence of MIBC. The model may help clinical decision and eventually benefit patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhiyong Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lijuan Jiang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhiling Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Minhua Deng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wensu Wei
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Huancheng Tang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shengjie Guo
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yunlin Ye
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kai Yao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhuowei Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fangjian Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Huang X, Jin S, Liu S, Geng J. Extreme body mass index is associated with poor survival outcomes after radical cystectomy: a retrospective cohort study in a Chinese population. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:3852-3861. [PMID: 34804827 PMCID: PMC8575586 DOI: 10.21037/tau-21-871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Body mass index (BMI) has been evidenced to be a significant prognostic factor in multiple cancers. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the association between BMI and survival outcomes after radical cystectomy (RC) in patients with bladder cancer (BCa). Methods Clinical and pathological parameters of patients who were diagnosed with BCa and received RC between 2010 and 2018 were collected. The associations between BMI at surgery and clinicopathological features were examined. The prognostic value of BCa for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models. Results Among the 217 patients enrolled in this study, 13 (6.0%), 121 (55.8%), 60 (27.6%), and 23 (10.6%) had a BMI value of <18.5 kg/m2 (underweight), 18.5–23.9 kg/m2 (normal), 24–27.9 kg/m2 (overweight), and ≥28 kg/m2 (obese), respectively. Underweight and obese patients tended to have poorer survival after RC than normal and overweight patients (P<0.05). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that extreme BMI was an independent predictor of both OS (BMI <18.5 vs. 18.5–27.9 kg/m2, OR =2.675, 95% CI: 1.131–6.327, P=0.025; BMI ≥28 vs. 18.5–27.9 kg/m2, OR =3.693, 95% CI: 1.589–8.583, P=0.002) and CSS (BMI <18.5 vs. 18.5–27.9 kg/m2, OR =3.012, 95% CI: 1.180–7.687, P=0.021; BMI ≥28 vs. 18.5–27.9 kg/m2, OR =3.801, 95% CI: 1.526–9.469, P=0.004), along with tumor stage and urinary diversion type. Conclusions Being underweight or obese is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with BCa undergoing RC. For patients who are preparing to undergo RC for BCa, controlling the BMI index through diet or exercise before surgery may contribute to the surgical curative effect and an improved prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Huang
- Clinical Medical College of Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.,Department of Urology, Liyang People's Hospital, Liyang, China
| | - Shenye Jin
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
| | - Shenghua Liu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jiang Geng
- Clinical Medical College of Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.,Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hakozaki K, Kikuchi E, Ogihara K, Shigeta K, Abe T, Miyazaki Y, Kaneko G, Maeda T, Yoshimine S, Kanai K, Ide H, Shirotake S, Oyama M, Mizuno R, Oya M. Significance of prophylactic urethrectomy at the time of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2021; 51:287-295. [PMID: 32893303 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prophylactic urethrectomy at the time of radical cystectomy is frequently recommended for patients with bladder cancer at a high risk of urethral recurrence without definitive evidence. The present study attempted to clarify the survival benefits of performing prophylactic urethrectomy. METHODS We identified 214 male patients who were treated by radical cystectomy with an incontinent urinary diversion in our seven institutions between 2004 and 2017. We used propensity score matching and ultimately identified 114 patients, 57 of whom underwent prophylactic urethrectomy (prophylactic urethrectomy group) and 57 who did not (non-prophylactic urethrectomy group). RESULTS No significant differences were observed in the 5-year overall survival rate between the prophylactic urethrectomy and non-prophylactic urethrectomy groups in the overall. However, the local recurrence rate was significantly lower in the prophylactic urethrectomy group than in the non-prophylactic urethrectomy group (P = 0.015). In the subgroup of 58 patients with multiple tumours and/or concomitant carcinoma in situ at the time of transurethral resection of bladder tumour, the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the prophylactic urethrectomy group than in the non-prophylactic urethrectomy group (P = 0.021). A multivariate analysis revealed that performing prophylactic urethrectomy was the only independent predictor of the overall survival rate (P = 0.016). In those patients who were treated without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 38), the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the prophylactic urethrectomy group than in the non-prophylactic urethrectomy group (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS Prophylactic urethrectomy at the time of radical cystectomy may have a survival benefit in patients with multiple tumours and/or concomitant carcinoma in situ, particularly those who do not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyohei Hakozaki
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Saitama National Hospital, Saitama
| | - Eiji Kikuchi
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Urology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa
| | - Koichiro Ogihara
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Urology, Kawasaki Municipal Hospital, Kanagawa
| | - Keisuke Shigeta
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takayuki Abe
- Department of Clinical and Translational Research Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo.,Yokohama City University, School of Data Science, Kanagawa
| | - Yasumasa Miyazaki
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Yokohamashi Tobu Hospital, Kanagawa
| | - Gou Kaneko
- Department of Uro-Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama
| | - Takahiro Maeda
- Department of Urology, Kawasaki Municipal Hospital, Kanagawa
| | | | - Kunimitsu Kanai
- Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Saitama National Hospital, Saitama
| | - Hiroki Ide
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Central Hospital, Tokyo
| | - Suguru Shirotake
- Department of Uro-Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama
| | - Masafumi Oyama
- Department of Uro-Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama
| | - Ryuichi Mizuno
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Mototsugu Oya
- Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mao S, Wu Y, Wang R, Guo Y, Bi D, Ma W, Zhang W, Zhang J, Yan Y, Yao X. Overexpression of GAS6 Promotes Cell Proliferation and Invasion in Bladder Cancer by Activation of the PI3K/AKT Pathway. Onco Targets Ther 2020; 13:4813-4824. [PMID: 32547108 PMCID: PMC7261663 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s237174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Growth arrest-specific 6 (GAS6) is a secreted vitamin K-dependent protein abnormally expressed in various human tumor tissues and can activate the receptor Tyro3, Axl, and Mer to promote cancer cell proliferation and invasion. Until now, the role of GAS6 has been poorly understood in bladder cancer (BCa). Materials and Methods Using bioinformatics analysis, we screened genes significantly associated with overall survival in BCa. The association between GAS6 and survival was evaluated by tissue microarray and IHC staining. We investigated the effect of GAS6 on the development of BCa through in vitro and in vivo experiments. Results Here, we report that GAS6 is highly expressed in bladder cancer and is significantly associated with tumor grade, T stage, and worse prognosis. We found that GAS6 depletion inhibited proliferation, migration, and invasion of BCa cells. In addition, bioinformatics analysis revealed that GAS6 may be involved in the regulation of PI3K-AKT signaling pathway by binding to receptor TAM and has a significant positive correlation with PI3K family gene expression. Furthermore, Western blot experiments have shown that GAS6 might modulate the PI3K-AKT signaling to regulate proliferation and invasion of BCa cells. Treatment of BCa cells with SC79, an AKT activator, partially restored the effect of GAS6 silencing on cell proliferation and invasion. Conclusion The present study suggests that GAS6 may play a pivotal role in the development of BCa and may be a potential target for its treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiyu Mao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Yuan Wu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230032, People's Republic of China
| | - Ruiliang Wang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Yadong Guo
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Dexi Bi
- Department of Pathology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Wenchao Ma
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230032, People's Republic of China
| | - Wentao Zhang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Junfeng Zhang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Yang Yan
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| | - Xudong Yao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A. EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort †: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees. Eur Urol 2020; 77:223-250. [PMID: 31753752 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. PATIENT SUMMARY This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Joaquim Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - H Maxim Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Theo M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicholas James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Juan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Tom Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Maria J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Theo Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evanguelos Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Neeraj Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Tom Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Aristotle Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Alison Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - Peter C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada
| | - Bernard H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michel Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Iris Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Max Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Departement Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Eva Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon hospital, HUEP, Paris, France; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Simon Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Stephane Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France
| | - Berardino De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Willem De Blok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Valerie Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Bogdan Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Shaista Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Arndt Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dickon Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Virginia Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Harry Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - Jorge Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Rob Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Anne E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susanne Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Sylvain Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Pedro C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - Annemarie Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Vibeke Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Anja Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Yohann Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Richard Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | | | | | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Jorg R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Susanne Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Wim J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manish I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Bradley R Pieters
- Department Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karin Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Mesut Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Margitta Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jonathan Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Florian Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - Jonathan E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Antti Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Shomik Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amir Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anita Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - George N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Susanne Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Mihai D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
| | - Erik Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Antoni Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Franklin A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System New York City, New York, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Andrew Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Richard Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Alan Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Horwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, DeBlok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Carmen Mir M, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Vahr Lauridsen S, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Vives Rivera FA, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Witjes JA. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†. Ann Oncol 2019; 30:1697-1727. [PMID: 31740927 PMCID: PMC7360152 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - M Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - J Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - H M Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - T M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - S Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - N James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
| | - S Maclennan
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - T Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - M J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - T Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - N Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, USA
| | - T Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - A Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - P C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - B H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - M Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - J L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - A Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - I Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - M Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - D Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - R Cathomas
- Department Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - A Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - A Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - E Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, HUEP, Paris; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - S Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - S Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris
| | - B De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - W DeBlok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent
| | - K Decaestecker
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Dimitropoulos
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J L Dominguez-Escrig
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - V Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - J J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - G Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - B Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - P Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - B Grubmüller
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - D E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, USA
| | - A Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - D Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - A M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - V Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - H Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - K Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - P Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - J Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - B A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - A M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - V Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - S Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - P C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque, Canarias; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - A Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - V Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - A Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Y Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - R Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - M Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - H Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - A-C Müller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - C R Müller
- Cancer Treatment Centre, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - J N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - A Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Y Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - J R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - S Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
| | - W J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - L Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - H Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - B R Pieters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | - K Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - M Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - J Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - M Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
| | - F Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - J E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA
| | - M Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris
| | - O Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - C Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - P Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - S Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - R J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - A Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland
| | - B Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - B Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA
| | - S Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - R Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - H Van Poppel
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - E Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - A Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - T Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - P Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - R Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - J A Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
Follow-up care of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer is subdivided into oncological and functional surveillance. More than 80% of local relapses and distant metastases occur within the first 2 years. Recurrences in the remnant urothelium also occur several years after radical cystectomy. Urinary cytology and a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and thorax including a urography phase are the standard diagnostics for tumor follow-up. There is no clear evidence for a survival benefit for the detection of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic recurrences. After partial cystectomy or trimodal treatment, there is no established follow-up schedule; however, the relatively high incidence of intravesical recurrences should be considered as there are curative treatment approaches including salvage cystectomy. Functional surveillance, which should be carried out lifelong, encompasses prevention and diagnostics of metabolic complications, urethral/ureteral strictures, problems with the urinary stoma, urinary incontinence, sexual dysfunction and urinary tract infections.
Collapse
|
16
|
Accurate Quantification of Residual Cancer Cells in Pelvic Washing Reveals Association with Cancer Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy. J Urol 2019; 201:1105-1114. [PMID: 30730413 DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000000142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Bladder cancer recurrence following cystectomy remains a significant cause of bladder cancer specific mortality. Residual cancer cells contribute to cancer recurrence due to tumor spillage or undetectable preexisting micrometastatic tumor clones. We detected and quantified residual cancer cells in pelvic washing using ultradeep targeted sequencing. We compared the levels of residual cancer cells with clinical variables and cancer recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS The primary tumor specimen was available in 17 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy. All tumors had negative surgical margins. Pelvic washes and blood were collected intraoperatively before and after robot-assisted radical cystectomy, after pelvic lymph node dissection and in the suction fluid collected during the procedure. Two-step sequencing, including whole exome sequencing followed by ultradeep targeted sequencing (× greater than 50,000), was done to quantify residual cancer cells in each sample. Eight patients were excluded from study due to sample quality issues. The final analysis cohort comprised 9 patients. The residual cancer cell level was quantified for each sample as the relative cancer cell fraction and compared between time points. The peak relative cancer cell fraction of each patient was correlated with clinical and pathological variables. RESULTS Residual cancer cells were detected in approximately half of the pelvic washing specimens during or after but not before robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Higher residual cancer cell levels were associated with aggressive variant histology and cancer recurrence. Verifying the feasibility of using residual cancer cells as a novel biomarker for recurrence requires larger cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Detection of residual cancer cells in intraoperative peritoneal washes of patients with bladder cancer who undergo radical cystectomy may represent a robust biomarker of tumor aggressiveness and metastatic potential.
Collapse
|
17
|
Influence of laparoscopic access in cancer-specific mortality of patients with pTa-2pN0R0 bladder cancer treated with radical cistectomy. Actas Urol Esp 2019; 43:241-247. [PMID: 30910257 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2018] [Revised: 11/10/2018] [Accepted: 01/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive surgery represents an attractive surgical approach in radical cystectomy. However, its effect on the oncological results is still controversial due to the lack of definite analyses. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the laparoscopic approach on cancer-specific mortality. MATERIAL AND METHOD A retrospective cohort study of two groups of patients in a pT0-2pN0R0 stage, undergoing open radical cystectomy (ORC) (n=191) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) (n=74). Using Cox regression, an analysis has been carried out to identify the predictor variables in the first place, and consequently, the independent predictor variables related to survival. RESULTS 90.9% were males with a median age of 65years and a median follow-up period of 65.5 (IQR27.75-122) months. Patients with laparoscopic access presented a significantly higher ASA index (P=.0001), a longer time between TUR and cystectomy (P=.04), a lower rate of intraoperative transfusion (P=.0001), a lower pT stage (P=.002) and a lower incidence of infection associated with surgical wounds (P=.04). When analyzing the different risk factors associated with cancer-specific mortality, we only found the ORC approach (versus LRC) as an independent predictor of cancer-specific mortality (P=.007). Open approach to cystectomy multiplied the risk of mortality by 3.27. CONCLUSIONS In our series, the laparoscopic approach does not represent a risk factor compared to the open approach in pT0-2N0R0 patients.
Collapse
|
18
|
Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2019; 37:1557-1570. [PMID: 30976902 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02708-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 02/26/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The efficacy of RARC in oncologic outcomes compared ORC is controversial. We assess potential differences in oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC). METHODS We performed the literature search systematically according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. A pooled meta-analysis was performed to assess the difference in oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC, separately in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRCTs). RESULTS Five RCTs and 28 NRCTs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the rate of overall positive surgical margin (PSM) in RCTs, while NRCTs showed a lower rate for RARC. There was no difference in the soft tissue PSM rate between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs. There was no difference in the lymph node yield by standard and extended lymph node dissection between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between RARC and ORC in both RCTs and NRCTs. CONCLUSIONS Based on the current evidence, there is no difference in the rate of PSMs, lymph node yield, recurrence rate and location as well as short-term survival outcomes between RARC and ORC in RCTs. In NRCTs, only PSM rates were better for RARC compared to ORC, but this was likely due to selection and reporting bias which are inherent to retrospective study designs.
Collapse
|
19
|
Influence of the laparoscopic approach on cancer-specific mortality of patients with stage pt3-4 bladder cancer treated with cystectomy. Actas Urol Esp 2019; 43:71-76. [PMID: 30327148 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.06.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIM The main aim of the study was to establish the oncological safety of the laparoscopic approach to radical cystectomy for high-risk, non-organ-confined urothelial tumours. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective cohort study of 216 stage pT3-4 cystectomies operated between 2003 and 2016; using an open approach (ORC, n=108), and using a laparoscopic approach (LRC, n=108). RESULTS Both groups have similar pathological features except, in G3 TUR, there were more lyphadenectomies and greater pN+, and more adjuvant chemotherapies using the LRC. The median follow-up of the series was 15 (IQR: 8-10.5) months. Sixty-eight point one percent of the series relapsed, with no differences between either group (p=.11). The estimated differences for cancer-specific survival was greater in the LRC group (p=.03), as was overall survival (p=.009). There were no differences between either group in estimated recurrence-free survival (p=.26). The type of surgical approach (p=.03), pTpN stage (p=.0001), and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p=.003) were related to cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in the univariate analysis. Only the pTpN stage (p=.0001), and not giving adjuvant chemotherapy (p=.003) behaved as independent predictive factors of CSM. CONCLUSION The type of surgical approach to cystectomy (ORC vs. LRC) did not influence CSM. Lymph node involvement and not giving adjuvant chemotherapy were identified as predictive factors of CSM. Our study supports the oncological safety of the laparascopic approach for cystectomy in patients with locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder tumours.
Collapse
|
20
|
Pichler R, Fritz J, Lackner F, Sprung S, Brunner A, Horninger W, Loidl W, Pircher A, Heidegger I. Prognostic Value of Testing PD-L1 Expression After Radical Cystectomy in High-risk Patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018; 16:e1015-e1024. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2018] [Revised: 05/29/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
21
|
Zuiverloon TCM, van Kessel KEM, Bivalacqua TJ, Boormans JL, Ecke TH, Grivas PD, Kiltie AE, Liedberg F, Necchi A, van Rhijn BW, Roghmann F, Sanchez-Carbayo M, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Wezel F, Kamat AM. Recommendations for follow-up of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients: A consensus by the international bladder cancer network. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:423-431. [PMID: 29496372 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2017] [Revised: 01/04/2018] [Accepted: 01/24/2018] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE Several guidelines exist that address treatment of patients with nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, most only briefly mention follow-up strategies for patients and hence the treating physician is often left to infer on what the preferred follow-up schema would be for an individual patient. Herein, we aim to synthesize recommendations for follow-up of patients with MIBC for easy reference. METHODS A multidisciplinary MIBC expert panel from the International Bladder Cancer Network was assembled to critically assess currently available major guidelines on surveillance of MIBC patients. Recommendations for follow-up were extracted and critically evaluated. Important considerations for guideline assessment included both aspects of oncological and functional follow-up-frequency of visits, the use of different imaging modalities, the role of cytology and molecular markers, and the duration of follow-up. OUTCOME An International Bladder Cancer Network expert consensus recommendation was constructed for the follow-up of patients with MIBC based on the currently available evidence-based data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tahlita C M Zuiverloon
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO
| | - Kim E M van Kessel
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Trinity J Bivalacqua
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MA
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Petros D Grivas
- Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Anne E Kiltie
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Fredrik Liedberg
- Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Bas W van Rhijn
- Division of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marta Sanchez-Carbayo
- Lucio Lascaray Research Center, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
| | - Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger
- Department of Urology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen and Urologie24, Nuremberg, Germany
| | - Felix Wezel
- Department of Urology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Olbert P, Goebell PJ, Hegele A. [Follow-up of bladder cancer : The right examinations at the right time]. Urologe A 2018; 57:693-701. [PMID: 29663062 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-018-0641-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Schedules for the follow-up (FU) of bladder cancer patients are predominantly based on studies with low level of evidence and the resulting guidelines' recommendations that are often founded on expert consensus. FU of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) includes cystoscopy and cytology as standard, and imaging modalities to a lower extent. FU of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) depends primarily on the therapeutic modality chosen and on the stage of disease. In this scenario, FU is complemented by functional and quality of life related aspects. These apply even more for FU in palliative situations. Here, the individual focus is on examinations that might have a consequence in terms of survival and/or symptom relief.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Olbert
- Praxis und Belegabteilung für Urologie und Andrologie, Brixsana Private Clinic, Julius Durst Str. 28, 39042, Brixen, Italien.
| | - P J Goebell
- Urologische und Kinderurologische Klinik, Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Erlangen, Deutschland
| | - A Hegele
- Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg UKGM, Marburg, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Abstract
Bladder cancer is the sixth leading cancer in the United States. Radical cystectomy is a lifesaving procedure for bladder cancer with or without muscle invasion. Radical cystectomy is performed on 39% of these patients, and 35% will have a life-threatening recurrence. Distant metastases are the most common; local, upper tract, and urethral recurrence can also occur. Surveillance after cystectomy is critical to diagnosing recurrence early. Functional complications after urinary diversion include bowel dysfunction, vitamin B12 deficiency, acidosis, electrolyte abnormalities, osteopenia, nephrolithiasis, urinary tract infections, renal functional decline, and urinary obstruction, which can be reversed when diagnosed early.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madhumitha Reddy
- Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
| | - Karim Kader
- Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Tai HC, Hong JH, Lin YH, Lu YC, Chiang Y, Huang KH, Cheng CH, Pu YS. Comparative analysis between radical cystectomy and trimodality therapy for clinical Stage II Bladder Cancer: Experience from a tertiary referral center. UROLOGICAL SCIENCE 2018. [DOI: 10.4103/uros.uros_13_17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
|
25
|
Ha YS, Kim TH. The Surveillance for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC). Bladder Cancer 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-809939-1.00030-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
|
26
|
Risk factors, follow-up, and treatment of urethral recurrence following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of 9498 patients. Oncotarget 2017; 9:2782-2796. [PMID: 29416811 PMCID: PMC5788679 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2017] [Accepted: 08/26/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Patients frequently undergo radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for treatment of bladder cancer. However, they remain at risk of urethral recurrence (UR). Studies have determined various risk factors leading to urethral recurrence. However, no publications have weighed the predictive values of these factors. Materials and Methods Studies published between 1971 and 2016 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE. We used STATA software (Version 12.0) to estimate the pooled risk ratio. Results Twenty-five publications with 9498 patients were included. Overall, male patients, especially those with concomitant carcinoma in situ, superficial or intravesical bladder cancer, non-orthotopic diversion, prostatic involvement, bladder neck involvement, positive urethral margins or multifocal bladder cancer were at higher risk of urethral recurrence. The overall risks of recurrence, reported as risk ratios, varied widely. Among all 25 studies, 118 (60.2%) cases in 9 studies were diagnosed through routine follow-up. Another 82 (40.8%) patients in 11 studies first reported symptomatic abnormalities. Prognoses were worse for patients with symptomatic recurrence. Urethral cytology was the most common diagnostic method. Treatment after UR was reported for 272 cases in 14 publications, and 190 patients underwent urethrectomy and 52 underwent urethra-sparing treatments. Outcomes after UR were described in 12 studies reporting 180 cases, and 41 patients were alive through the end of follow-up and 65 patients died of bladder cancer. Conclusions UR following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer was closely related to risk factors. Precautions, strict follow-up protocols and rational therapies were critical to patients with high risks of urethral recurrences.
Collapse
|
27
|
Pichler R, Tulchiner G, Oberaigner W, Schaefer G, Horninger W, Brunner A, Heidegger I. Effect of Urinary Cytology for Detecting Recurrence in Remnant Urothelium After Radical Cystectomy: Insights From a 10-year Cytology Database. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e783-e791. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2017] [Revised: 02/20/2017] [Accepted: 03/06/2017] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
|
28
|
Pichler R, Fritz J, Heidegger I, Oberaigner W, Horninger W, Hochleitner M. Gender-related Outcome in Bladder Cancer Patients undergoing Radical Cystectomy. J Cancer 2017; 8:3567-3574. [PMID: 29151942 PMCID: PMC5687172 DOI: 10.7150/jca.21130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2017] [Accepted: 08/29/2017] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The impact of gender on oncological outcome after radical cystectomy (RC) is not fully understood yet. The aim of the study was to evaluate gender-related differences in histopathological parameters and prognosis of patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a 10-year single-center cystectomy database was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox-regression analyses with sex-specific interactions were performed to determine the impact of gender on recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), in addition to established clinicopathological factors. Results: 259 patients (212 [81.8%] men and 47 [18.2%] women) were enrolled. Although women had a greater propensity for extravesical (≥pT3) disease (53.2% vs. 33.9%, p=0.03) and heterotopic urinary diversion (72.3% vs. 49.5%, p=0.006), gender did not independently predict RFS, CSS or OS on multivariate analysis. Extravesical tumor disease was the sole independent predictor concerning RFS (hazard ratio [HR]=4.70; p<0.001), CCS (HR=2.77; p=0.013), and OS (HR=1.93; p=0.041). Orthotopic urinary diversion (HR=0.36; p=0.002) had an independent effect only on RFS. Rates of 5-year RFS (73.7% vs. 48.3%; p=0.001), CSS (72.5% vs. 44.9%; p<0.001) and OS (62.6% vs. 37.8%; p<0.001) were higher in orthotopic versus heterotopic diversions. Conclusion: In our series, women presented with more advanced tumors and higher rates of heterotopic urinary diversions, but their survival outcome was not significantly inferior to that of men. Extravesical disease was independently related to poorer survival after RC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Josef Fritz
- Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics
| | | | - Wilhelm Oberaigner
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology of the Tyrolean State Hospitals Ltd, Cancer Registry of Tyrol.,Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and HTA, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria
| | | | - Margarethe Hochleitner
- Women's Health Centre and Coordination Centre for Equality, Affirmative Action for Women and Gender Research, Medical University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Shyu S, Burke AP, Papadimitriou JC. Late-onset solitary metastasis of urothelial bladder carcinoma mimicking primary lung adenocarcinoma with a lepidic component. HUMAN PATHOLOGY: CASE REPORTS 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ehpc.2016.08.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
|
30
|
Hernández-Fernández C, Herranz-Amo F, Moralejo-Gárate M, Subirá-Ríos D, Caño-Velasco J, Barbas-Bernardos G. Infiltrating bladder cancer: prognostic factors, follow-up and treatment of relapses. Actas Urol Esp 2017; 41:352-358. [PMID: 27561847 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2016.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Bladder cancer is the cause of more than 150,000 deaths per year. The overall rate of survival is approximately 45%, with a 10-year recurrence-free rate of 50-59%, with no changes in the last decade. OBJECTIVE Due to a lack of agreement on the follow-up of cystectomy or on a uniform treatment when faced with the various types of recurrence, we have analysed the most recent literature in an attempt to unify the criteria for the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE Review of Spanish and English publications in the medical literature in the last 10 years, highlighting the most significant series in terms of the number of patients, follow-up time, as well as the existing meta-analyses. SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE Recurrence after cystectomy can occur in the urinary apparatus (upper urinary tract or distal urethra) and local (cystectomy bed) and/or distant metastases. Despite strict control, more than 60% of the relapses are discovered based on symptoms and not by the routine follow-up test. Locoregional and distant relapses are more common the more advanced the stage at the time of cystectomy, going from 11-21% in pT2N0 to 52-72% when there is lymphocytic N+ involvement. Recurrence in the urethra and/or upper urinary track has other prognostic factors such as multiplicity, the presence of Cis and involvement of prostatic stroma. There are various treatments for tumour relapses. Increasingly, the patient's comorbidity is considered when deciding on the therapeutic strategy. Treatments are typically multimodal and include surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION The follow-up of patients who undergo cystectomy should be individualised, taking into account the prognostic factors of recurrence and the patient's comorbidity, assuming that in some cases, multimodal treatment is indicated.
Collapse
|
31
|
Early Oncologic Failure after Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. J Urol 2016; 197:1427-1436. [PMID: 27993668 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We sought to investigate the prevalence and variables associated with early oncologic failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the IRCC (International Radical Cystectomy Consortium) database of patients who underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy since 2003. The final cohort comprised a total of 1,894 patients from 23 institutions in 11 countries. Early oncologic failure was defined as any disease relapse within 3 months of robot-assisted radical cystectomy. All institutions were surveyed for the pneumoperitoneum pressure used, breach of oncologic surgical principles, and techniques of specimen and lymph node removal. A multivariate model was fit to evaluate predictors of early oncologic failure. The Kaplan-Meier method was applied to depict disease specific and overall survival, and Cox proportional regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of disease specific and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 305 patients (22%) experienced disease relapse, which was distant in 220 (16%), local recurrence in 154 (11%), peritoneal carcinomatosis in 17 (1%) and port site recurrence in 5 (0.4%). Early oncologic failure developed in 71 patients (5%) at a total of 10 institutions. The incidence of early oncologic failure decreased from 10% in 2006 to 6% in 2015. On multivariate analysis the presence of any complication (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.38-5.96, p = 0.004), pT3 or greater disease (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.00-6.97, p <0.001) and nodal involvement (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.21-3.80, p = 0.008) was a significant predictor of early oncologic failure. Patients with early oncologic failure demonstrated worse disease specific and overall survival (23% and 13%, respectively) at 1 and 3 years compared to patients who experienced later or no recurrences (log rank p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS The incidence of early oncologic failure following robot-assisted radical cystectomy has decreased with time. Disease related rather than technical related factors have a major role in early oncologic failure after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.
Collapse
|
32
|
Alfred Witjes J, Lebret T, Compérat EM, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Bruins HM, Hernández V, Espinós EL, Dunn J, Rouanne M, Neuzillet Y, Veskimäe E, van der Heijden AG, Gakis G, Ribal MJ. Updated 2016 EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol 2016; 71:462-475. [PMID: 27375033 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1063] [Impact Index Per Article: 132.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2016] [Accepted: 06/13/2016] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Invasive bladder cancer is a frequently occurring disease with a high mortality rate despite optimal treatment. The European Association of Urology (EAU) Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer (MIBC) Guidelines are updated yearly and provides information to optimise diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of this patient population. OBJECTIVE To provide a summary of the EAU guidelines for physicians and patients confronted with muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION An international multidisciplinary panel of bladder cancer experts reviewed and discussed the results of a comprehensive literature search of several databases covering all sections of the guidelines. The panel defined levels of evidence and grades of recommendation according to an established classification system. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Epidemiology and aetiology of bladder cancer are discussed. The proper diagnostic pathway, including demands for pathology and imaging, is outlined. Several treatment options, including bladder-sparing treatments and combinations of treatment modalities (different forms of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy) are described. Sequencing of these modalities is discussed. Potential indications and contraindications, such as comorbidity, are related to treatment choice. There is a new paragraph on organ-sparing approaches, both in men and in women, and on minimal invasive surgery. Recommendations for chemotherapy in fit and unfit patients are provided including second-line options. Finally, a follow-up schedule is provided. CONCLUSIONS The current summary of the EAU Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer Guidelines provides an up-to-date overview of the available literature and evidence dealing with diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with metastatic and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY Bladder cancer is an important disease with a high mortality rate. These updated guidelines help clinicians refine the diagnosis and select the appropriate therapy and follow-up for patients with metastatic and muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Thierry Lebret
- Hôpital Foch, Department of Urology, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Eva M Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Hôpital La Pitié Salpetrière, UPMC, Paris, France
| | - Nigel C Cowan
- Radiology Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Maria De Santis
- University of Warwick, Cancer Research Unit, Coventry, UK; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Harman Maxim Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Virginia Hernández
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - James Dunn
- Department of Urology, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK
| | - Mathieu Rouanne
- Hôpital Foch, Department of Urology, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Hôpital Foch, Department of Urology, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Erik Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | | | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Maria J Ribal
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Vilaseca A, Huguet J, Pérez M, Camacho D, García-Cruz E, José Ribal M, Alcaraz A. The Role of Surgery in Local Recurrences after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. Urol Int 2016; 96:132-5. [DOI: 10.1159/000443336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2015] [Accepted: 12/12/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
34
|
Hayakawa N, Kikuno N, Ishihara H, Ryoji O, Tanabe K. Anterior urethra sparing cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer: a 10-year, single center experience. SPRINGERPLUS 2015; 4:401. [PMID: 26261759 PMCID: PMC4529429 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1200-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2015] [Accepted: 07/29/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Decision making regarding the urethra before and after radical cystectomy due to urothelial carcinoma has always been controversial. To determine whether anterior urethra sparing cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer is an oncologically-safe procedure, we evaluated the long-term oncologic clinical outcome. Patients and methods A total of 51 male patients with cTa-4N0-2M0 bladder cancer were treated with anterior urethra sparing cystoprostatectomy and simultaneous urinary diversion between 2000 and 2013, and underwent follow up for 4 months or more. We assessed differences in the perioperative outcomes, oncologic outcomes and recurrence rates according to the urinary diversion. Results The median patient age and follow-up period were 66 years and 35 months, respectively. The 5- and 10-year recurrence free survival (RFS) rates in ileal conduit (IC) group vs. orthotopic neobladder reconstruction (NB) group were 45.0 and 20.3% vs. 39.3 and 19.6%, respectively. Likewise, the 5- and 10-year disease specific survival (DSS) were 52.7 and 32.1% vs. 39.3 and 29.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed two independent prognostic factors for RFS and DSS, including age at surgery and lymph node status. Local recurrence in the remnant anterior urethra occurred in only 1 patient (2.0%) at 57 months after surgery. Conclusions Our long-term data show that anterior urethra sparing cystoprostatectomy is an oncologically-safe procedure regardless of the type of urinary diversion in a subset of carefully selected patients with bladder cancer without evidence of urothelial carcinoma in the urethra/bladder neck and urethral surgical margin. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1200-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nozomi Hayakawa
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama Japan ; Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Nobuyuki Kikuno
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama Japan ; Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroki Ishihara
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama Japan ; Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Osamu Ryoji
- Department of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama Japan ; Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kazunari Tanabe
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Mai KT, Ball CG, Swift J, A Flood T, Belanger EC. Novel technique of sampling the urinary bladder for urothelial carcinoma specimens. Int J Surg Pathol 2015; 23:202-6. [PMID: 25627071 DOI: 10.1177/1066896914567329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Sampling of the urinary bladder (UB) in radical cystectomy specimens is usually performed by obtaining sections through the lesions taken in rather random planes. The technique is hindered by the difficulty in identifying the anatomical relationship of the tumor with the remaining urinary bladder. Fifty radical cystectomy specimens were bisected in the horizontal plane at the middle portion of the UB then fixed without tissue stretching in 10% buffered formalin for at least 24 hours. The UBs were serially sectioned in parallel horizontal planes from the UB neck to the dome into rings of 3 to 10 mm thickness. The sections were orderly arranged and photographed. At least one ring of tissue was entirely submitted along with areas of interest or representative areas. Our proposed technique of transverse sections results in a mild increase in the number of sections submitted for microscopic examination. The advantages of our methods are (a) consistency and ease of sampling that help the microscopic-macroscopic correlation, (b) suitability for gross examination and for determining depth of invasion and largest tumor diameter, (c) improved identification of satellite lesions, and (d) suitability for neoplastic mapping and suitability for reexamination. The technique was validated by comparing with results of current technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kien T Mai
- The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Joanne Swift
- The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Trevor A Flood
- The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eric C Belanger
- The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Kim SH, Yang HK, Lee JH, Lee ES. A retrospective analysis of incidence and its associated risk factors of upper urinary tract recurrence following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer with transitional cell carcinoma: the significance of local pelvic recurrence and positive lymph node. PLoS One 2014; 9:e96467. [PMID: 24798444 PMCID: PMC4010468 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2013] [Accepted: 04/08/2014] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study is to examine the incidence and risk factors of upper urinary tract recurrence (UUTR) following radical cystectomy (RC) in bladder cancer and to evaluate its relationship with neobladder (Neo) or ileal conduit (IC). Materials and Methods All clinicopathologic parameters and perioperative parameters of 311 patients who underwent RC with either Neo or IC by a single surgeon from 1999 to 2012 were retrospectively included in this study. Patients with a history of renal surgery, concomitant UUTR, or a histopathology of non-transitional cell carcinoma were excluded. For statistical analyses of predictive risk factors of UUTR, a multivariate analysis was performed with known risk factors of UUTR, including type of urinary diversion with significance defined as P < 0.05. Results During the median follow-up period of 53 months, 143 (46.0%) IC and 168 (54.0%) Neo were performed, resulting in 11 (3.5%) cases of UUTR (Neo 7 and IC 4) after RC and all patients then underwent nephroureterectomy. No significant differences in incidence and overall survival in UUTR were observed according different types of urinary diversion (p = 483), and the prognosis for survival of Neo was insignificantly better than that of IC (5-year overall survival 78% vs 74%, respectively, p>0.05). Higher number of positive lymph nodes (HR 9.03) and the presence of pelvic local recurrence (HR 7286.08) were significant predictive factors of UUTR (p<0.05). Conclusion This study reports a UUTR rate of 3.5%, and positive lymph nodes and presence of local recurrence at the pelvis as important risk factors. No significant differences in incidence and survival were observed between Neo and IC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Han Kim
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Gyanggi, Korea
| | - Hyung-Kook Yang
- Department of Epidemiology and Statistics and Cancer Policy Branch of the National Cancer Control Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Gyanggi, Korea
| | - Jung Hoon Lee
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eun-Sik Lee
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Seoul, Korea
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|