| Literature DB >> 26942590 |
Omar M S El-Taji1, Sameer Alam2, Syed A Hussain3.
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT: Organ preservation has been increasingly utilised in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Multiple bladder preservation options exist, although the approach of maximal TURBT performed along with chemoradiation is the most favoured. Phase III trials have shown superiority of chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy gives local control outcomes comparable to those of radical surgery, but seemingly more superior when considering quality of life. Bladder-preserving techniques represent an alternative for patients who are unfit for cystectomy or decline major surgical intervention; however, these patients will need lifelong rigorous surveillance. It is important to emphasise to the patients opting for organ preservation the need for lifelong bladder surveillance as risk of recurrence remains even years after radical chemoradiotherapy treatment. No randomised control trials have yet directly compared radical cystectomy with bladder-preserving chemoradiation, leaving the age-old question of superiority of one modality over another unanswered. Radical cystectomy and chemoradiation, however, must be seen as complimentary treatments rather than competing treatments. Meticulous patient selection is vital in treatment modality selection with the success of recent trials within the field of bladder preservation only being possible through this application of meticulous selection criteria compared to previous decades. A multidisciplinary approach with radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and urologists is needed to closely monitor patients who undergo bladder preservation in order to optimise outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Bladder preservation; Bladder sparing; Chemoradiation; Muscle-invasive; Organ preservation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26942590 PMCID: PMC4779141 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-016-0390-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol ISSN: 1534-6277
Fig. 1Age-standardized 5-year relative survival rates, England and Wales 1971–1995, England 1996–2009 based on type of cancer
Radical TUR monotherapy
| Overall disease-specific survival (%) | Ref | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Study design | Study group | Exclusion criteria | Bladder preservation cohort | Follow-up | 5 years | 10 years | 15 years | |
| Herr et al. | Phase II nonrandomized trial | TUR | No tumour/residual CIS/NMIBC on repeat TUR | 99 | ≥10 years | 82 | 76 | [ | |
| Solsona et al. | Phase II nonrandomized trial | TUR | Nodular tumour of >3 cm or those with evidence of advanced clinical stage disease (hydronephrosis/adenopathy/metastasis) | 133 | 15 years | 82 | 80 | 77 | [ |
Phase III chemoradiation trials
| Study | n | Tumour grade | Methods | Complete response rate | Results | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoskin et al. | 333 | T2–T4a | Radiotherapy (55 Gy in 20 fractions in 4 weeks or 64 Gy in 32 fractions in 6.5 weeks) + nicotinamide (60 or 40 mg/kg given 1.5–2 h before each fraction) + carbogen (2 % CO2 and 98 % O2 at 15 L/min administered 5 min before and during radiotherapy) vs radiotherapy alone | 81 vs 76 % ( | 3-year overall survival 59 vs 46 % ( | [ |
| Coppin et al. | 99 | T2–T4b N0 | Radiotherapy (fractionated continuous pelvic radiation) + cisplatin 100 mg/m2 at 2-week intervals for three cycles concurrent with radiation vs radiotherapy alone | 47 vs 31 % | 3-year overall survival 47 vs 33 % 5-year locoregional relapse rate 40 vs 59 % ( | [ |
| James et al. | 360 | T2–T4a N0 | Concominant chemoradiotherapy (5FU 500 mg/m2/day during fractions 1–5 and 16–20 and mitomycin C 12 mg/m2 + whole bladder radiotherapy/modified volume radiotherapy) vs radiotherapy alone | 5-year overall survival 48 vs 35 % ( | [ | |
| Tunio et al. | 230 | T2–T4 N0/Nx | Concomitant chemoradiotherapy with whole pelvis radiotherapy vs bladder-only radiotherapy | 93 vs 96 % ( | 5-year overall survival 52.9 vs 51 % ( | [ |