Rodolfo Hurle1, Paolo Casale1, Massimo Lazzeri1, Marco Paciotti2, Alberto Saita1, Piergiuseppe Colombo3, Emanuela Morenghi4, David Oswald5, Daniela Colleselli5, Michael Mitterberger5, Thomas Kunit5, Martina Hager6, Thomas R W Herrmann7, Lukas Lusuardi5. 1. Department of Urology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Clinical and Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Urology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Clinical and Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy. marco.paciotti@humanitas.it. 3. Department of Pathology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Clinical and Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedical Science, Humanitas University, via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20090, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Department of Pathology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 7. Department of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of en bloc re-resection (EBRS) in patients who had undergone previous en bloc resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: An international, multicenter, observational retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients with a high-risk NMIBC who had previously undergone en bloc resection were scheduled for EBRS of the resected area after 40 days. The primary outcome was the presence of residual tumor or recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 78 patients underwent EBRS. Only five (6.41%) residual cancers were found: one patient had a pTa G3 (1.28%) cancer and four (5.13%) had a pTis. The detrusor muscle was preserved in all samples. Only one patient had a positive margin on EBRS. No procedure called for a conversion to traditional re-TURBT. No patient experienced bladder perforation or other intra-operative complications. The recurrence rate at the first follow-up cystoscopy (RRFF-C at 3 months) was 3.85% (three patients). The median follow-up period was 30.8 months (range 6.9-76.0 months). In univariate analysis, the only predictor of recurrence was grade. Overall we observed 11 recurrences. Only one tumor progressed to T2 MIBC. CONCLUSIONS: The low rates of residual tumor, recurrence, and progression seem to raise doubts about the efficacy of EBRS in patients who have previously undergone en bloc resection. EBRS appears to be a feasible and safe procedure with a low rate of complications. However, further data will be needed before EBRS can be used in clinical trials or recommended as a treatment modality.
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of en bloc re-resection (EBRS) in patients who had undergone previous en bloc resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: An international, multicenter, observational retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients with a high-risk NMIBC who had previously undergone en bloc resection were scheduled for EBRS of the resected area after 40 days. The primary outcome was the presence of residual tumor or recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 78 patients underwent EBRS. Only five (6.41%) residual cancers were found: one patient had a pTa G3 (1.28%) cancer and four (5.13%) had a pTis. The detrusor muscle was preserved in all samples. Only one patient had a positive margin on EBRS. No procedure called for a conversion to traditional re-TURBT. No patient experienced bladder perforation or other intra-operative complications. The recurrence rate at the first follow-up cystoscopy (RRFF-C at 3 months) was 3.85% (three patients). The median follow-up period was 30.8 months (range 6.9-76.0 months). In univariate analysis, the only predictor of recurrence was grade. Overall we observed 11 recurrences. Only one tumor progressed to T2 MIBC. CONCLUSIONS: The low rates of residual tumor, recurrence, and progression seem to raise doubts about the efficacy of EBRS in patients who have previously undergone en bloc resection. EBRS appears to be a feasible and safe procedure with a low rate of complications. However, further data will be needed before EBRS can be used in clinical trials or recommended as a treatment modality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bladder cancer; En bloc re-resection; En bloc resection; NMIBC; Outcome
Authors: Andreas Böhle; Herbert Leyh; Christian Frei; Michael Kühn; Reinhold Tschada; Tobias Pottek; Walter Wagner; Helmut H Knispel; Wolfgang von Pokrzywnitzki; Ferruh Zorlu; Karin Helsberg; Birgit Lübben; Victoria Soldatenkova; Clemens Stoffregen; Hartwig Büttner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-06-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rasha Gendy; Warick Delprado; Phillip Brenner; Andrew Brooks; Graham Coombes; Paul Cozzi; Peter Nash; Manish I Patel Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Mario W Kramer; Vincenzo Altieri; Rodolfo Hurle; Lukas Lusuardi; Axel S Merseburger; Jens Rassweiler; Julian P Struck; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-01-11
Authors: Marko Babjuk; Andreas Böhle; Maximilian Burger; Otakar Capoun; Daniel Cohen; Eva M Compérat; Virginia Hernández; Eero Kaasinen; Joan Palou; Morgan Rouprêt; Bas W G van Rhijn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Viktor Soukup; Richard J Sylvester; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marco Paciotti; Paolo Casale; Piergiuseppe Colombo; Vittorio Fasulo; Alberto Saita; Giovanni Lughezzani; Roberto Contieri; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Massimo Lazzeri; Giorgio Guazzoni; Rodolfo Hurle Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-02-24