OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of an extensive restaging examination performed after the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) but before radical cystectomy (RC) in the management of patients with advanced bladder cancer. METHODS: We studied 62 patients who underwent NAC with the intent of proceeding to consolidative RC. A restaging examination, including endoscopic and bimanual examination, as well as cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen and pelvis, was performed after chemotherapy. The impact of restaging on clinical management was determined. In patients proceeding to RC, the degree of correlation between clinical stage (at diagnosis vs on restaging) and pathologic stage was determined. RESULTS: Restaging altered the treatment course in 6 patients (9.7%) in whom RC was not performed because of restaging findings. An additional 56 patients (90.3%) proceeded to RC. In these patients, compared with clinical stage at diagnosis, the postchemotherapy clinical stage correlated more strongly with pathologic stage (κ = 0.02 vs 0.17). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic clinical stage was not associated with pathologic stage (P = .85), whereas postchemotherapy clinical stage was strongly predictive of pathologic stage (P <.01). CONCLUSION: An extensive restaging examination altered treatment strategy in a small, but clinically significant subset of patients treated with NAC for bladder cancer. Furthermore, restaging allowed for more accurate prediction of pathologic stage after RC, thereby improving assessment of patient prognosis. Consideration should be given to incorporating a restaging evaluation into the standard management paradigm for bladder cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of an extensive restaging examination performed after the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) but before radical cystectomy (RC) in the management of patients with advanced bladder cancer. METHODS: We studied 62 patients who underwent NAC with the intent of proceeding to consolidative RC. A restaging examination, including endoscopic and bimanual examination, as well as cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen and pelvis, was performed after chemotherapy. The impact of restaging on clinical management was determined. In patients proceeding to RC, the degree of correlation between clinical stage (at diagnosis vs on restaging) and pathologic stage was determined. RESULTS: Restaging altered the treatment course in 6 patients (9.7%) in whom RC was not performed because of restaging findings. An additional 56 patients (90.3%) proceeded to RC. In these patients, compared with clinical stage at diagnosis, the postchemotherapy clinical stage correlated more strongly with pathologic stage (κ = 0.02 vs 0.17). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic clinical stage was not associated with pathologic stage (P = .85), whereas postchemotherapy clinical stage was strongly predictive of pathologic stage (P <.01). CONCLUSION: An extensive restaging examination altered treatment strategy in a small, but clinically significant subset of patients treated with NAC for bladder cancer. Furthermore, restaging allowed for more accurate prediction of pathologic stage after RC, thereby improving assessment of patient prognosis. Consideration should be given to incorporating a restaging evaluation into the standard management paradigm for bladder cancer.
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Ganesh S Palapattu; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Craig G Rogers; Amnon Vazina; Patrick J Bastian; Mark P Schoenberg; Seth P Lerner; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Yair Lotan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Canter; Christopher Long; Alexander Kutikov; Elizabeth Plimack; Ismail Saad; Megan Oblaczynski; Fang Zhu; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo; Richard E Greenberg; Stephen A Boorjian Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sean McLaughlin; Jon Shephard; Eric Wallen; Susan Maygarden; Culley C Carson; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Guru Sonpavde; Bryan H Goldman; V O Speights; Seth P Lerner; David P Wood; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ronald B Natale; H Barton Grossman; E David Crawford Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmad Shabsigh; Ruslan Korets; Kinjal C Vora; Christine M Brooks; Angel M Cronin; Caroline Savage; Ganesh Raj; Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Jorge A Garcia; Donna E Hansel; Amr F Fergany; Steven C Campbell; Michael C Gong; J Stephen Jones; Eric A Klein; Robert Dreicer; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nilay M Gandhi; Alexander Baras; Enrico Munari; Sheila Faraj; Leonardo O Reis; Jen-Jane Liu; Max Kates; Mohammad Obaidul Hoque; David Berman; Noah M Hahn; Mario Eisenberger; George J Netto; Mark P Schoenberg; Trinity J Bivalacqua Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Matthew Zibelman; Aeen M Asghar; Daniel C Parker; John O'Neill; Shuanzeng Wei; Richard E Greenberg; Marc C Smaldone; David Y T Chen; Rosalia Viterbo; Robert G Uzzo; Evan Bloom; Rutika Kokate; Daniel M Geynisman; Pooja Ghatalia; Mengying Deng; Eric A Ross; Elizabeth Plimack; Philip H Abbosh; Alexander Kutikov Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 7.450