Comparison of trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for each stage of muscle-invasive bladder cancer

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.4103/uros.uros_8_21
Wen-Hsin Tseng, Steven Y Huang, Chien-Liang Liu, J. Kuo, Shun-Hsing Hun, Chun-Hao Chen, C. Su, Jhih-Cheng Wang, Kau-Han Lee, K. Hsieh, A. Chiu
{"title":"Comparison of trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for each stage of muscle-invasive bladder cancer","authors":"Wen-Hsin Tseng, Steven Y Huang, Chien-Liang Liu, J. Kuo, Shun-Hsing Hun, Chun-Hao Chen, C. Su, Jhih-Cheng Wang, Kau-Han Lee, K. Hsieh, A. Chiu","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_8_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Radical cystectomy (RC) has long been the standard of care for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, an increasing trend of bladder-sparing trimodal therapy (TMT) using maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor, followed by radiation therapy (RT) with concomitant radiosensitizing chemotherapy, has been advocated. We compared the differences regarding long-term oncological outcomes between patients who accepted RC or TMT for MIBC. Materials and Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2018, 207 patients were diagnosed with MIBC at our center. We excluded patients with metastasis disease, received other treatments, and lost to follow-up. The patients were categorized into Group 1 (TMT) and Group 2 (RC). Both the groups with each tumor stage were compared for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates, and the risk factors for recurrence and survival were assessed. Results: In total, 58 (48.7%) patients in Group 1 underwent TMT and 61 (51.3%) patients in Group 2 underwent RC. The mean follow-up was 39.8 months. The 3-year DFS rates were 44.1% and 69.7% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.003). The 3-year OS rates were 61.7% and 72.5% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.226). We also analyzed the DFS with each stage, and the results showed a lower DFS rate for T2 and N0 stages. Conclusion: There was no significant survival benefit for MIBC with either RC or TMT. However, RC is associated with better outcome of DFS rate, especially for patients with early stages of MIBC in stages T2 and N0.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"32 1","pages":"164 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_8_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Radical cystectomy (RC) has long been the standard of care for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, an increasing trend of bladder-sparing trimodal therapy (TMT) using maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor, followed by radiation therapy (RT) with concomitant radiosensitizing chemotherapy, has been advocated. We compared the differences regarding long-term oncological outcomes between patients who accepted RC or TMT for MIBC. Materials and Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2018, 207 patients were diagnosed with MIBC at our center. We excluded patients with metastasis disease, received other treatments, and lost to follow-up. The patients were categorized into Group 1 (TMT) and Group 2 (RC). Both the groups with each tumor stage were compared for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates, and the risk factors for recurrence and survival were assessed. Results: In total, 58 (48.7%) patients in Group 1 underwent TMT and 61 (51.3%) patients in Group 2 underwent RC. The mean follow-up was 39.8 months. The 3-year DFS rates were 44.1% and 69.7% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.003). The 3-year OS rates were 61.7% and 72.5% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.226). We also analyzed the DFS with each stage, and the results showed a lower DFS rate for T2 and N0 stages. Conclusion: There was no significant survival benefit for MIBC with either RC or TMT. However, RC is associated with better outcome of DFS rate, especially for patients with early stages of MIBC in stages T2 and N0.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三模式治疗与根治性膀胱切除术治疗癌症各期肌肉浸润性膀胱癌的比较
目的:根治性膀胱切除术(RC)长期以来一直是治疗肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)的标准治疗方法。然而,越来越多的人提倡保留膀胱的三模式治疗(TMT),即经尿道最大限度切除膀胱肿瘤,然后进行放射治疗(RT),同时进行放射增敏化疗。我们比较了接受RC或TMT治疗MIBC患者长期肿瘤预后的差异。材料与方法:2012年1月至2018年12月,我们中心有207例确诊为MIBC的患者。我们排除了转移性疾病的患者,接受了其他治疗,失去了随访。患者分为1组(TMT)和2组(RC)。比较两组各肿瘤分期的无病生存(DFS)和总生存(OS)率,并评估复发和生存的危险因素。结果:1组58例(48.7%)患者行TMT, 2组61例(51.3%)患者行RC。平均随访39.8个月。第1组和第2组3年DFS分别为44.1%和69.7% (P = 0.003)。第1组和第2组3年生存率分别为61.7%和72.5% (P = 0.226)。我们还分析了各分期的DFS,结果显示T2和N0分期的DFS率较低。结论:无论是RC还是TMT,对MIBC患者都没有明显的生存益处。然而,RC与更好的DFS率相关,特别是对于T2期和N0期的早期MIBC患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1