Chanan Reitblat1,2, Joaquim Bellmunt3, Boris Gershman4. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. bgershma@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinically regional node-positive (cN+) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder requires a multi-modal management approach amidst growing recognition that it represents a spectrum of disease. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence for the natural history, evaluation, and management of clinically regional node-positive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, highlighting recent changes in lymph node staging. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite advances in techniques, cross-sectional imaging remains relatively insensitive for the detection of lymph node metastases. Recent changes to nodal staging that distinguish between cN1, cN2-3, and non-regional lymph node metastases reflect an increasing understanding that node-positive disease is heterogeneous and its management must be individualized according to nodal staging. Systemic therapy remains the initial management strategy, either alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, with choice and sequencing of agents extrapolated from studies of metastatic disease. Consolidative radical cystectomy is an option for patients with disease response to upfront systemic therapy, and several series demonstrate a subset of patients with favorable oncologic outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy and radical cystectomy as local therapy remains an important evidence gap. Future studies that identify predictive biomarkers will help inform optimal choice of systemic therapy. The management of clinically regional node-positive disease requires a multimodal approach comprising both systemic and local therapy, tailored to the patient and to disease response. While choice of systemic therapy will be informed by ongoing studies in patients with metastatic disease, including the elucidation of predictive biomarkers, the comparative effectiveness of local therapies remains an important evidence gap.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinically regional node-positive (cN+) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder requires a multi-modal management approach amidst growing recognition that it represents a spectrum of disease. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence for the natural history, evaluation, and management of clinically regional node-positive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, highlighting recent changes in lymph node staging. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite advances in techniques, cross-sectional imaging remains relatively insensitive for the detection of lymph node metastases. Recent changes to nodal staging that distinguish between cN1, cN2-3, and non-regional lymph node metastases reflect an increasing understanding that node-positive disease is heterogeneous and its management must be individualized according to nodal staging. Systemic therapy remains the initial management strategy, either alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, with choice and sequencing of agents extrapolated from studies of metastatic disease. Consolidative radical cystectomy is an option for patients with disease response to upfront systemic therapy, and several series demonstrate a subset of patients with favorable oncologic outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy and radical cystectomy as local therapy remains an important evidence gap. Future studies that identify predictive biomarkers will help inform optimal choice of systemic therapy. The management of clinically regional node-positive disease requires a multimodal approach comprising both systemic and local therapy, tailored to the patient and to disease response. While choice of systemic therapy will be informed by ongoing studies in patients with metastatic disease, including the elucidation of predictive biomarkers, the comparative effectiveness of local therapies remains an important evidence gap.
Authors: Richard P Meijer; Laura S Mertens; Bas W van Rhijn; Axel Bex; Henk G van der Poel; Wim Meinhardt; J Martijn Kerst; Andre M Bergman; Annemarie Fioole-Bruining; Erik van Werkhoven; Simon Horenblas Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tom J N Hermans; Elisabeth E Fransen van de Putte; Simon Horenblas; Richard P Meijer; Joost L Boormans; Katja K H Aben; Michiel S van der Heijden; Ronald de Wit; Laurens V Beerepoot; Rob H A Verhoeven; Bas W G van Rhijn Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J A Nieuwenhuijzen; A Bex; W Meinhardt; J M Kerst; J H Schornagel; H VAN Tinteren; S Horenblas Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Homayoun Zargar; Yair Lotan; Jay B Shah; Bas W van Rhijn; Siamak Daneshmand; Philippe E Spiess; Peter C Black Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Harman Max Bruins; Richard Cathomas; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Georgios Gakis; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; Anja Lorch; Yann Neuzillet; Mathieu Rouanne; George N Thalmann; Erik Veskimäe; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G van der Heijden Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 20.096