The impact of re‐transurethral resection on clinical outcomes in a large multicentre cohort of patients with T1 high‐grade/Grade 3 bladder cancer treated with bacille Calmette–Guérin

Objectives To determine if a re‐transurethral resection (TUR), in the presence or absence of muscle at the first TUR in patients with T1‐high grade (HG)/Grade 3 (G3) bladder cancer, makes a difference in recurrence, progression, cancer specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients and methods I...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJU international 2016-07, Vol.118 (1), p.44-52
Hauptverfasser: Gontero, Paolo, Sylvester, Richard, Pisano, Francesca, Joniau, Steven, Oderda, Marco, Serretta, Vincenzo, Larré, Stéphane, Di Stasi, Savino, Van Rhijn, Bas, Witjes, Alfred J., Grotenhuis, Anne J., Colombo, Renzo, Briganti, Alberto, Babjuk, Marek, Soukup, Viktor, Malmström, Per‐Uno, Irani, Jacques, Malats, Nuria, Baniel, Jack, Mano, Roy, Cai, Tommaso, Cha, Eugene K., Ardelt, Peter, Vakarakis, John, Bartoletti, Riccardo, Dalbagni, Guido, Shariat, Shahrokh F., Xylinas, Evanguelos, Karnes, Robert J., Palou, Joan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives To determine if a re‐transurethral resection (TUR), in the presence or absence of muscle at the first TUR in patients with T1‐high grade (HG)/Grade 3 (G3) bladder cancer, makes a difference in recurrence, progression, cancer specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients and methods In a large retrospective multicentre cohort of 2451 patients with T1‐HG/G3 initially treated with bacille Calmette–Guérin, 935 (38%) had a re‐TUR. According to the presence or absence of muscle in the specimen of the primary TUR, patients were divided in four groups: group 1 (no muscle, no re‐TUR), group 2 (no muscle, re‐TUR), group 3 (muscle, no re‐TUR) and group 4 (muscle, re‐TUR). Clinical outcomes were compared across the four groups. Results Re‐TUR had a positive impact on recurrence, progression, CSS and OS only if muscle was not present in the primary TUR specimen. Adjusting for the most important prognostic factors, re‐TUR in the absence of muscle had a borderline significant effect on time to recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = 0.08], progression (HR 0.46, P = 0.06), CSS (HR 0.31, P = 0.07) and OS (HR 0.48, P = 0.05). Re‐TUR in the presence of muscle in the primary TUR specimen did not improve the outcome for any of the endpoints. Conclusions Our retrospective analysis suggests that re‐TUR may not be necessary in patients with T1‐HG/G3, if muscle is present in the specimen of the primary TUR.
ISSN:1464-4096
1464-410X
1464-410X
DOI:10.1111/bju.13354