Second transurethral resection for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis

Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in the Contemporary Era

CONTEXT

Repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) is a guideline-recommended treatment strategy in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT); however, the impact of recent procedural/technological developments on reTUR outcomes has not been assessed yet.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes of reTUR for NMIBC in the contemporary era, focusing on whether temporal differences and technical advancement, specifically, photodynamic diagnosis and en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT), affect the outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Multiple databases were queried in February 2023 for studies investigating reTUR outcomes, such as residual tumor and/or upstaging rates, its predictive factors, and oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival. We synthesized comparative outcomes adjusting for the effect of possible confounders.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 81 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. In T1 patients initially treated with conventional TURBT (cTURBT) in the 2010s, the pooled rates of any residual tumors and upstaging on reTUR were 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.0-37.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.0-3.8%), respectively. Despite a potential publication bias, these rates were significantly lower than those in patients treated in the 1990-2000s (both p < 0.001). ERBT and visual enhancement-guided cTURBT significantly improved any residual tumor rates on reTUR compared with cTURBT based on both matched-cohort and multivariable analyses. Among studies adjusting for the effect of possible confounders, patients who underwent reTUR had better RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) and OS (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) than those who did not, while it did not lead to superior PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15) and CSS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

reTUR is currently recommended for high-risk NMIBC based on the persistent high rates of residual tumors after primary resection. Improvement of resection quality based on checklist applications and recent technical/procedural advancements hold the promise to omit reTUR.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Recent endoscopic/procedural developments improve the outcomes of repeat resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Further investigations are urgently needed to clarify the potential impact of the use of these techniques on the need for repeat transurethral resection in the contemporary era.

Biological distinction between grades 2 and 3 with respect to intravesical recurrence in T1 high-grade bladder tumors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The pathological grading system for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is based on the WHO 2004/2016 classification system (low-grade: LG/high-grade: HG) and the WHO 1973 classification system (Grade 1: G1/Grade 2: G2/Grade 3: G3). Recently, the usefulness of combining both systems and classifying the tumors as LG/G1, LG/G2, HG/G2, and HG/G3 has been demonstrated. In this study, we compared the prognosis of intravesical recurrence in relation to different treatment intensities between HG/G2 and HG/G3 bladder cancers.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and therapeutic outcomes of 145 patients diagnosed with T1 HG bladder cancer between 2000 and 2020. We classified 145 patients into three groups: (1) patients with T1 HG/G2 and HG/G3 who received intravesical instillation therapy (n = 76), (2) patients with T1 HG/G2 who did not receive intravesical instillation therapy (n = 32), and (3) patients with T1 HG/G3 who did not receive intravesical instillation therapy (n = 37).

RESULTS

The median intravesical recurrence-free survival for all patients was 34.2 months. The number of tumors, the presence of intravesical instillation therapy, and tumor grade were significant prognostic factors for intravesical recurrence in all cases. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly worse prognosis than group 1 in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding intravesical recurrence, intravesical instillation therapy is necessary for both T1 HG/G3 and T1 HG/G2 bladder cancers.