While it has been demonstrated that receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before radical cystectomy (RC) improves survival compared to RC alone, the driving factor for this benefit may be from patients with ypT0 status at surgery. Meanwhile, the implications of having residual urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (rUCB) at RC after NAC are less clear. We therefore evaluated whether survival differed between patients with rUCB at RC after NAC and stage-matched controls who underwent RC alone. Patients who underwent NAC + RC (n = 180) were matched to controls who underwent RC alone (n=324) on the basis of pT and pN stage, margin status, and year of RC. The 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS; 90% vs 94%; p=1), cancer-specific survival (CSS; 82% vs 93%; p=0.4), and overall survival (OS; 82% vs 82%; p=0.5) were not significantly different between the NAC and control groups for patients with ypT0N0/pT0N0 disease (n=103). Conversely, among patients with rUCB at RC (n=401), patients who received NAC had significantly worse 5-yr RFS (50% vs 63%; p=0.01), CSS (40% vs 59%; p=0.003), and OS (33% vs 48%; p=0.02). On multivariable analysis for patients with rUCB, NAC receipt remained independently associated with worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.66; p=0.001), CSS (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.52; p<0.001), and OS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18-2.08; p=0.002). Limitations include potential for selection bias owing to the retrospective observational design. Thus, while patients who achieve a complete response to NAC have excellent survival outcomes, those with rUCB after NAC have a worse prognosis compared to stage-matched controls undergoing RC alone. It may be worthwhile considering these patients for clinical trials evaluating the role of additional treatments after RC using newer agents while we await further research on predicting which patients achieve ypT0 status from NAC before RC. PATIENT SUMMARY: On surgical removal of the bladder, patients without residual bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have excellent survival outcomes. However, patients with residual cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery have worse outcomes compared to patients undergoing surgery alone. These patients should therefore be considered for additional treatments after surgery using newer agents while we await further research on predicting which patients will benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy before bladder removal for cancer.
While it has been demonstrated that receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before radical cystectomy (RC) improves survival compared to RC alone, the driving factor for this benefit may be from patients with ypT0 status at surgery. Meanwhile, the implications of having residual urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (rUCB) at RC after NAC are less clear. We therefore evaluated whether survival differed between patients with rUCB at RC after NAC and stage-matched controls who underwent RC alone. Patients who underwent NAC + RC (n = 180) were matched to controls who underwent RC alone (n=324) on the basis of pT and pN stage, margin status, and year of RC. The 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS; 90% vs 94%; p=1), cancer-specific survival (CSS; 82% vs 93%; p=0.4), and overall survival (OS; 82% vs 82%; p=0.5) were not significantly different between the NAC and control groups for patients with ypT0N0/pT0N0 disease (n=103). Conversely, among patients with rUCB at RC (n=401), patients who received NAC had significantly worse 5-yr RFS (50% vs 63%; p=0.01), CSS (40% vs 59%; p=0.003), and OS (33% vs 48%; p=0.02). On multivariable analysis for patients with rUCB, NAC receipt remained independently associated with worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.66; p=0.001), CSS (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.52; p<0.001), and OS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18-2.08; p=0.002). Limitations include potential for selection bias owing to the retrospective observational design. Thus, while patients who achieve a complete response to NAC have excellent survival outcomes, those with rUCB after NAC have a worse prognosis compared to stage-matched controls undergoing RC alone. It may be worthwhile considering these patients for clinical trials evaluating the role of additional treatments after RC using newer agents while we await further research on predicting which patients achieve ypT0 status from NAC before RC. PATIENT SUMMARY: On surgical removal of the bladder, patients without residual bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have excellent survival outcomes. However, patients with residual cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery have worse outcomes compared to patients undergoing surgery alone. These patients should therefore be considered for additional treatments after surgery using newer agents while we await further research on predicting which patients will benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy before bladder removal for cancer.
Authors: Marco Bandini; Alberto Briganti; Elizabeth R Plimack; Günter Niegisch; Evan Y Yu; Aristotelis Bamias; Neeraj Agarwal; Srikala S Sridhar; Cora N Sternberg; Ulka Vaishampayan; Christine Théodore; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Joaquim Bellmunt; Matthew D Galsky; Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Necchi Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-09-07
Authors: Albert Font; Montserrat Domenech; Oscar Buisan; Hector Lopez; Andrea González; Olatz Etxaniz; Marta Matas; Xavier Elias; Maica Gomez; Mariona Figols; Judith Horneros; Juan Carlos Pardo; Lucia Notario; Vicenç Ruiz de Porras; Ignacio Perez; Joan Areal; Anna Esteve Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Izak Faiena; Amirali Salmasi; Neil Mendhiratta; Andrew T Lenis; Aydin Pooli; Alexandra Drakaki; Kiran Gollapudi; Jeremy Blumberg; Allan J Pantuck; Karim Chamie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Patrick J Hensley; Natasha Kyprianou; Matthew S Purdom; Daheng He; Vincent DiCarlo; Chi Wang; Andrew C James Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.954
Authors: Katarzyna Gronostaj; Anna Katarzyna Czech; Jakub Fronczek; Tomasz Wiatr; Mikołaj Przydacz; Przemysław Dudek; Łukasz Curyło; Wojciech Szczeklik; Piotr Chłosta Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2020-02-27