We have detected that you are using an Ad Blocker.
PracticeUpdate is free to end users but we rely on advertising to fund our site. Please consider supporting PracticeUpdate by whitelisting us in your ad blocker.
We have sent a message to the email address you have provided, . If this email is not correct, please update your settings with your correct address.
The email address you provided during registration, , does not appear to be valid. Please update your settings with a valid address before to continue using PracticeUpdate.
Please provide your AHPRA Number to ensure that you are given the correct level of access to our site.
featured
Published in Bladder Cancer

Expert Opinion / Cases · March 22, 2021

Bladder-Sparing in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Written by
Daniel E. Lage MD, Msc

 

Discuss This item Follow

No comments yet, be the first to start the discussion!

  • Guru Sonpavde

    To summarize, this is a 75 year-old female with a solitary muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma on the right trigone/right lateral wall with no carcinoma in-situ or hydronephrosis. Multiparametric (mp)MRI may help with staging of a bladder tumor, although further data are necessary. In the event a suspicious pelvic lymph node is seen, a PET scan can help with optimal staging (a metastatic lymph node would render upfront optimal systemic combination chemotherapy more important before considering local definitive therapy). The patient appears fit and eligible for cisplatin and radical cystectomy. The conventional and preferred option is neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy since this approach is proven in phase III trials to extend survival (clinical trials combining neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be offered if available). The alternative trimodality chemoradiation strategy following initial maximal TURBT as a bladder-sparing approach is reasonable in well selected patients who are unfit for or refuse radical cystectomy. This patient does have features associated with favorable outcomes with trimodality therapy, i.e. solitary tumor (not in a diverticulum), no CIS, no prior radiation to that region, absence of significant urinary symptoms and absence of hydronephrosis. While this specific patient can certainly choose to pursue trimodality therapy, it is important to discuss the fact that no randomized phase III trial data exist that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy vs trimodality therapy. Notably, the UK MRC phase III trial (Griffiths et al, JCO 2011) that demonstrated improved survival with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemo did allow either radical cystectomy, radiation or chemoradiation as definitive local therapy. The optimal chemotherapy regimen to combine with radiation is unclear, although cisplatin, 5FU+mitomycin and gemcitabine alone are all considered reasonable. The patient may be offered trials combining chemoradiation with PD1/L1 inhibitors, which offers the promising potential to improve outcomes. Interestingly, improved disease-free survival was reported recently with adjuvant nivolumab following radical cystectomy for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (CHECKMATE274 trial).


  • May 15, 2021

    Pending Moderator approval.
    Delete

Further Reading