Objectives To compare survival and oncological outcomes of cisplatin‐ineligible patients (Cis‐I) and cisplatin‐eligible (Cis‐E) patients with muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing immediate radical cystectomy (IRC), as IRC is currently considered the standard‐of‐care for Cis‐I patients with MIBC. Patients and Methods Data from patients with clinical (c)T2–4cN0–1M0 MIBC undergoing IRC, between 2006 and 2021, were retrospectively analysed from four tertiary care centres in the United States. Overall, recurrence‐free and event‐free survival were described using the Kaplan–Meier method and tested using the log‐rank test. For context, we compared survival outcomes against those in Cis‐E patients with MIBC undergoing IRC from the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG)‐8710 trial. Results Overall, 379 Cis‐I and 125 Cis‐E patients with cT2–4cN0–1M0 MIBC who underwent IRC were included. Cis‐I patients included 44.8% cT3/4 vs 60% cT3/4 in the Cis‐E group. Overall, 83.3% of Cis‐I and 79.2% of Cis‐E patients died during follow‐up. The median event‐free and overall survival were 12.1 and 14.5 months for the Cis‐I group and 28.8 and 60.1 months for the Cis‐E group ( P < 0.001). [Correction added on 10 October 2025, after first online publication: The preceding sentence has been revised in this version.] Limitations include retrospective comparison of contemporary multi‐institutional data with that of a randomised control trial. Conclusions The Cis‐I patients with MIBC undergoing IRC fared poorly, with a median overall survival of 14.5 (95% confidence interval 11.1–17.9) months, mostly due to non‐cancer‐related deaths. These results provide a benchmark for clinical trials exploring novel agents or alternative chemotherapy regimens in Cis‐I patients with MIBC.
Objectives To reassess the role of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with marker‐negative non‐seminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT) clinical stage (CS) 2a, to explore results in patients with CS 2b and to evaluate surgical methods, recurrence, and adjuvant chemotherapy indications. Materials and Methods Data from 17 institutions were collected, comprising 305 men who underwent primary RPLND for CS 2 NSGCT. Regression analyses were conducted to predict histology in the RPLND specimen and disease‐free survival (DFS). Results A larger retroperitoneal lymph node diameter was associated with pure teratoma in the RPLND specimen (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.07; P = 0.03), but no association was observed with DFS. The 5‐year DFS rates in marker negative CS 2a and 2b were 79% and 76%. In men with non‐teratomatous viable cancer in the RPLND specimen, the 5‐year DFS rates for CS 2a and 2b were 95% and 87% with adjuvant chemotherapy, and 67% and 74% without adjuvant chemotherapy. We did not identify an association between the number of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles and DFS. Conclusions Our study suggests considering primary RPLND not only in marker‐negative CS 2a but also in CS 2b. Further research should determine the efficacy of primary RPLND in men with CS 2c and marker‐positive CS 2, as well as which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal cycle number.
Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.
Outcomes after primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in men with stage 2 non-seminomatous germ cell tumour: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.
516 Background: Based on only smaller retrospective cohort studies, current guidelines recommend primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for men with marker-negative stage 2a non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). We aimed to reassess the role of primary RPLND in marker negative stage 2a, explore results in stages 2b/c and/or marker-positive disease, and evaluate surgical methods, recurrence, and adjuvant chemotherapy indications. Methods: Data from 17 institutions were collected, comprising 305 men who underwent primary RPLND for stage 2 NSGCT. Regression analyses were conducted to predict histology in the RPLND specimen and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A larger retroperitoneal lymph node diameter was associated with pure teratoma in the RPLND specimen (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.09, p-value = 0.02), but it did not correlate with PFS. The 5-year PFS rates were 85% for men with pure teratoma, 94% for men with viable cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 72% for men with viable cancer who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The number of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles did not significantly affect PFS. Conclusions: Our study suggests considering primary RPLND not only in marker negative clinical stage 2a but also marker negative clinical stage 2b. Further research should identify the efficacy in men in other stages (2C or marker positive) and which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal cycle number.
Risk Factors for Relapse in Nonseminomatous Testicular Cancer After Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection With Viable Residual Cancer
What is the role of pcRPLND in men with retroperitoneal vital cancer after first-line chemotherapy? This question arises because of the potential predictive value of miR371 in identifying residual cancer even before pcRPLND! @cdfankhauser shared data within a multicenter cohort study redefining future practice in the miR371 era.
Efficacy and Safety of Mitomycin Gel (UGN-101) as an Adjuvant Therapy After Complete Endoscopic Management of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma
Antegrade administration of mitomycin gel for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
via
percutaneous nephrostomy tube: a
multi‐institutional
retrospective cohort s
Objectives To assess the safety profile of antegrade mitomycin gel instillation through a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCNT) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) with the aim of decreasing morbidity associated with therapy. Patients and Methods Patients undergoing antegrade administration of mitomycin gel via PCNT were retrospectively included for analysis from four tertiary referral centres between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was safety profile, as graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0). Post‐therapy disease burden was assessed by primary disease evaluation (PDE) via ureteroscopy. Results Thirty‐two patients received at least one dose of mitomycin gel via PCNT for UTUC, 29 of whom completed induction and underwent PDE. Thirteen patients (41%) had residual tumour present prior to induction therapy. At a median of 15.0 months following first dose of induction therapy, ureteric stenosis occurred in three patients (9%), all of whom were treated without later recurrence or chronic stenosis. Other adverse events included fatigue (27%), flank pain (19%), urinary tract infection (12%), sepsis (8%) and haematuria (8%). No patients had impaired renal function during follow‐up and there were no treatment‐related deaths. Seventeen patients (59%) had no evidence of disease at PDE and have not experienced recurrence at a median follow‐up of 13.0 months post induction. Conclusions Administration of mitomycin gel via a PCNT offers a low rate of ureteric stenosis, demonstrates a favourable safety profile, and is administered without general anaesthesia.
NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022
The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.
Dose analysis of ASSURE (E2805): Adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib for unfavorable renal carcinoma, an ECOG-ACRIN-led, NCTN phase 3 trial.
Objective To evaluate the outcome of patients after surgical resection of isolated retroperitoneal lymph node ( RPLN ) recurrence of renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) using a multicentre international cohort. Patients and Methods In all, 50 patients were identified who underwent resection of isolated RPLN recurrence of RCC at four institutions after nephrectomy for pT any N any M0 disease. Progression‐free ( PFS ) and cancer‐specific survival ( CSS ) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association of clinicopathological characteristics with disease progression. Results The median (interquartile range, IQR ) age at resection was 57.0 (50.0–62.5) years. The median ( IQR ) time to RPLN recurrence after nephrectomy was 12.6 (6.9–39.5) months, with no significant difference in median time to RPLN recurrence between patients with N+ disease at nephrectomy (10.7 [6.5–24.6] months) and those with Nx/pN0 disease at nephrectomy (13.7 [8.7–44.2] months) ( P = 0.66). The median ( IQR ) size of the RPLN recurrence before resection was 2.6 (1.9–5) cm. The most common site for RPLN recurrence was within the interaortocaval region (34%). The median ( IQR ) follow‐up after RPLN resection for patients alive at last follow‐up was 28.0 (13.7–51.2) months. During follow‐up, 26 patients developed RCC recurrence, at a median ( IQR ) of 9.9 (4.0–18.5) months after RPLN resection. Of those who developed a secondary recurrence, disease was again isolated to the retroperitoneum in seven patients. In all, 11 patients subsequently died, including 10 who died from disease. The median PFS after RPLN resection was 19.5 months, with a 3‐ and 5‐year PFS of 40.5% and 35.4%, respectively. We also found that RPLN recurrence at ≤12 months after nephrectomy was associated with a significantly inferior median PFS (12.3 months) compared with RPLN recurrence at >12 months after nephrectomy (47.6 months; P = 0.003). Moreover, on multivariate analysis, a shorter time to recurrence remained associated with a significantly increased risk for subsequent disease progression (hazard ratio 3.51; P = 0.005). Conclusion Surgical resection of isolated RPLN recurrence from RCC may result in durable cancer control in appropriately selected patients. Recurrence at ≤12 months after nephrectomy was associated with a significantly increased risk of progression after resection, underscoring the importance of this variable for risk stratification. Thus, we recommend that, in the setting of isolated RPLN recurrence of RCC (in patients without precluding comorbidities), careful consideration with the patients and medical oncology colleagues be undertaken about the relative and individualised benefits of surgical resection, systemic therapy, and surveillance.