Daniel L Willis1, Thomas W Flaig2, Donna E Hansel3, Matthew I Milowsky4, Robert L Grubb5, Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie6, Elizabeth R Plimack7, Theresa M Koppie8, David J McConkey1, Colin P Dinney1, Vanessa A Hoffman9, Michael J Droller10, Edward Messing11, Ashish M Kamat12. 1. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Denver, School of Medicine, Denver, CO. 3. Department of Pathology, UC San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA. 4. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 6. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 8. Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 9. Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, Bethesda, MD. 10. Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, NY. 11. Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY. 12. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: akamat@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: No guidelines exist for the management of micropapillary bladder cancer (MPBC) and most reports of this variant of urothelial carcinoma are case series comprising small numbers of patients. We sought to determine current practice patterns for MPBC using a survey sent to the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) and to present those results in the setting of a comprehensive review of the existing literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey developed by the Translational Science Working Group of the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network-sponsored Think Tank meeting was distributed to members of the SUO. The results from 118 respondents were analyzed and presented with a literature review. RESULTS: Most survey respondents were urologists, with 80% considering bladder cancer their primary area of interest. Although 78% of the respondents reported a dedicated genitourinary pathologist at their institution, there were discrepant opinions on how a pathologic diagnosis of MPBC is determined as well as variability on the proportion of MPBC that is clinically significant. Among them, 78% treat MPBC differently than conventional urothelial carcinoma, with 81% reporting that they would treat cT1 MPBC with upfront radical cystectomy. However, the respondents had split opinions regarding the sensitivity of MPBC to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, which affected utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The management of MPBC is diverse among members of the SUO. Although most favors early cystectomy for cT1 MPBC, there is no consensus on the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive MPBC.
OBJECTIVES: No guidelines exist for the management of micropapillary bladder cancer (MPBC) and most reports of this variant of urothelial carcinoma are case series comprising small numbers of patients. We sought to determine current practice patterns for MPBC using a survey sent to the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) and to present those results in the setting of a comprehensive review of the existing literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey developed by the Translational Science Working Group of the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network-sponsored Think Tank meeting was distributed to members of the SUO. The results from 118 respondents were analyzed and presented with a literature review. RESULTS: Most survey respondents were urologists, with 80% considering bladder cancer their primary area of interest. Although 78% of the respondents reported a dedicated genitourinary pathologist at their institution, there were discrepant opinions on how a pathologic diagnosis of MPBC is determined as well as variability on the proportion of MPBC that is clinically significant. Among them, 78% treat MPBC differently than conventional urothelial carcinoma, with 81% reporting that they would treat cT1MPBC with upfront radical cystectomy. However, the respondents had split opinions regarding the sensitivity of MPBC to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, which affected utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The management of MPBC is diverse among members of the SUO. Although most favors early cystectomy for cT1MPBC, there is no consensus on the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive MPBC.
Authors: Geri LoBiondo-Wood; Carlton G Brown; M Tish Knobf; Debra Lyon; Gail Mallory; Sandra A Mitchell; Diane Von Ah; Susan Wesmiller; Bryan Fellman Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Ankur R Sangoi; Andrew H Beck; Mahul B Amin; Liang Cheng; Jonathan I Epstein; Donna E Hansel; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Esther Oliva; Gladell P Paner; Victor E Reuter; Jae Y Ro; Rajal B Shah; Steven S Shen; Pheroze Tamboli; Jesse K McKenney Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Joshua J Meeks; Jennifer M Taylor; Kazuhito Matsushita; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Adrian S Fairey; Siamak Daneshmand; Lina Wang; Anne Schuckman; Gary Lieskovsky; Hooman Djaladat; Jie Cai; Gus Miranda; Eila C Skinner Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Ashish M Kamat; Jason R Gee; Colin P N Dinney; H Barton Grossman; David A Swanson; Randall E Millikan; Michelle A Detry; Tracy L Robinson; Louis L Pisters Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Donna E Hansel; Mahul B Amin; Eva Comperat; Richard J Cote; Ruth Knüchel; Rodolfo Montironi; Victor E Reuter; Mark S Soloway; Saleem A Umar; Theodorus H Van der Kwast Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ashish M Kamat; Colin P N Dinney; Jason R Gee; H Barton Grossman; Arlene O Siefker-Radtke; Pheroze Tamboli; Michelle A Detry; Tracy L Robinson; Louis L Pisters Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Srinivas Vourganti; Andrew Harbin; Eric A Singer; Brian Shuch; Adam R Metwalli; Piyush K Agarwal Journal: J Cancer Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Simone Bertz; S Wach; H Taubert; R Merten; F S Krause; S Schick; O J Ott; E Weigert; O Dworak; C Rödel; R Fietkau; B Wullich; B Keck; A Hartmann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Daniel L Willis; Mario I Fernandez; Rian J Dickstein; Sahil Parikh; Jay B Shah; Louis L Pisters; Charles C Guo; Samuel Henderson; Bogdan A Czerniak; H Barton Grossman; Colin P Dinney; Ashish M Kamat Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael J Metcalfe; James E Ferguson; Roger Li; Lianchun Xiao; Charles C Guo; Bogdan A Czerniak; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Shanna M Pretzsch; Neema Navai; David J McConkey; Ashish M Kamat; Mathew Campbell; Colin Dinney Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-07-13
Authors: E Compérat; J R Srigley; F Brimo; B Delahunt; M Koch; A Lopez-Beltran; V Reuter; H Samaratunga; J H Shanks; T Tsuzuki; T van der Kwast; M Varma; F Webster; D Grignon Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Marco Moschini; David D'Andrea; Stephan Korn; Yasin Irmak; Francesco Soria; Eva Compérat; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 14.432