Novel transurethral resection technologies and training modalities in the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: a comprehensive review

Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Side-by-Side Guideline Comparison

Clinical guidelines from the European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, Society of Urologic Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network are some of the most frequently accessed publications. These guidelines are published at varying frequency and use different methods to formulate their recommendations. Many guidelines still rely on expert opinion in areas where there is a lack of data. To be well executed guidelines they need to involve comprehensive panels who are content experts and multispecialty. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of current guidelines for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and possible opportunities for future improvements. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality recommendations in guidelines are critical to provide the most effective care for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

En bloc resection of bladder tumors: challenges and unmet needs in 2021

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer accounts for the majority of new bladder cancer diagnoses, and endoscopic transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) represents the standard-of-care. Although a relatively safe and common procedure, TURBT is often hampered by the questionable quality of resection. The evolution of surgical techniques has brought en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) to the forefront. ERBT has emerged as an alternative to conventional TURBT, incorporating a more delicate en bloc sculpting and tumor excision, in contrast to 'piecemeal' resection by conventional TURBT. ERBT appears safe, feasible and effective with demonstrably higher rates of detrusor muscle in the pathologic specimen, all while providing better staging and obviating the need for a re-TURBT in selected patients. However, the method's adoption in the field is still limited. This review summarizes the recent evidence relevant to ERBT while further highlighting the technique's limitations and unmet needs.

Comparison of Clinicopathologic and Oncological Outcomes Between Transurethral En Bloc Resection and Conventional Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis with Focus on Different Energy Sources

Introduction: It has been hypothesized that transurethral en bloc (TUEB) of bladder tumor offers benefits over conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT). This study aimed to compare disease outcomes of TUEB and cTURBT with focus on the different energy sources. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science databases in June 2021. Studies that compared the pathological (detrusor muscle presence), oncological (recurrence rates) efficacy, and safety (serious adverse events [SAEs]) of TUEB and cTURBT were included. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analytic models and Bayesian approach in the network meta-analysis was used. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and seven non-RCTs (NRCT), with a total of 2092 patients. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence risk ratios (RR) of five and four NRCTs were 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.73) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.96), respectively. The pooled 3- and 12-month recurrence RRs of four and seven RCTs were 0.57 (95% CI 0.25-1.27) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.69-1.15), respectively. The pooled RR for SAEs such as prolonged hematuria and bladder perforation of seven RCTs was 0.16 (95% CI 0.06-0.41) in benefit of TUEB. Seven RCTs (n = 1077) met our eligibility criteria for network meta-analysis. There was no difference in 12-month recurrence rates between hybridknife, laser, and bipolar TUEB compared with cTURBT. Contrary, laser TUEB was significantly associated with lower SAEs compared with cTURBT. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking analyses showed with high certainty that laser TUEB was the best treatment option to access all endpoints. Conclusion: While NRCTs suggested a recurrence-free benefit to TUEB compared with cTURBT, RCTs failed to confirm this. Conversely, SAEs were consistently and clinically significantly better for TUEB. Network meta-analyses suggested laser TUEB has the best performance compared with other energy sources. These early findings need to be confirmed and expanded upon.