Home > Riviste > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 April;71(2) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 April;71(2):101-12



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


REVIEW   Free accessfree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 April;71(2):101-12

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03317-4


lingua: Inglese

Bladder-sparing treatment in MIBC: where do we stand?

Srikanth MURALI-KRISHNAN 1 , Karl H. PANG 2, Francesco GRECO 3, Cristian FIORI 4, James W. CATTO 1, 2, Vittorio L. VAVASSORI 5, Francesco ESPERTO 1, on behalf of EAU-ESRU (European Associations of Urology-European Society of Residents Urologist)

1 Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital, Sheffield, UK; 2 Unit of Academic, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 3 Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital, Bergamo, Italy; 4 Department of Urology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy

INTRODUCTION: The gold-standard treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer is radical cystectomy (RC), but this can be associated with morbidity and perioperative risks. Patients may not be fit for RC or choose to preserve their bladders. There are evolving bladder-sparing treatments that are often delivered in a multimodal approach. Here, we aim to review recent advances in bladder-sparing treatments.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We undertook a narrative review informed by a Medline/PubMed literature search using a combination of terms for recent (5 years) articles in English. Relevant studies from authors’ bibliographies were retrieved.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Bladder-sparing treatment consists of transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT), radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Experimental approaches with immunotherapy and using gene signatures for radiation therapy and chemotherapy response are being explored.
CONCLUSIONS: Bladder-sparing treatment is an option for patients with bladder cancer. Those who may benefit most are those with solitary invasive cancers, those with good bladder capacity and compliance, those who choose to preserve their bladder and sexual function and who are not fit for RC. Multimodal bladder-sparing approaches may have comparable oncological outcomes to RC and so appear an attractive alternative in suitable patients.

KEY WORDS: Urinary bladder neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Drug therapy; Immunotherapy

inizio pagina