Shore, Neal

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.