THE IMPACT OF RE-TUR ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN A LARGE COHORT OF T1G3PATIENTS TREATED WITH BCG.

Risultato della ricerca: Other

Abstract

Scopo del lavoroRe-TUR is strongly advocated for T1G3, because of the high incidence residual disease and mainly the riskof substaging. Its real clinical value remains to be determined and the clinical factors that may influencethe decision. Some authors suggest that when muscle is present in the specimen, re-TUR may be avoided.To evaluate if the presence of muscle or not at the first TUR in T1G3 bladder cancer makes a difference inrecurrence, progression and cancer specific survival after re-TUR.Materiali e metodiIn a large retrospective cohort of 2530 primary T1G3 initially treated with BCG, 953 (37.7%) had a re-TUR.According to the presence or not of muscle in the specimen of primary TUR, patients were divided in 4groups: group 1 (no muscle, no re-TUR), group 2 (no muscle, re-TUR), group 3 (muscle, no re-TUR) andgroup 4 (muscle, re-TUR). Clinical outcomes were compared across the 4 groups.RisultatiTable 1 shows the distribution of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes across the 4 groups. Largetumours and multifocal tumours were more likely to have received a re-TUR independent of whether or notthe primary specimen contained muscle. Re-TUR had a significant impact on progression, cancer specific(CSS) and overall survival (OS) only when muscle was not present in the primary specimen. When adjustingfor the most important prognostic factors including age, tumour size and the presence of CIS, re-TUR in theabsence of muscle maintained a positive impact on time to progression (HR 0.44, p=0.048), CSS (HR 0.31;p=0.067), and OS (HR 0.50; p=0.060) and showed a borderline effect on time to first recurrence (HR 0.69;p=0.100). Re-TUR in presence of muscle in the primary specimen did not improve the outcome for any ofthe endpoints after adjusting for prognostic factors.DiscussioneEven if re TUR is recommended in high risk tumors, it can delay the intravescial therapy. When muscle ispresent in TUR specimen the risk of substaging or residual tumor should be balanced with the need of keepon with adequate treatments.ConclusioniOur retrospective analysis shows that re-TUR may not be mandatory in T1G3 patients when muscle ispresent in the specimen of the primary TUR.
Lingua originaleEnglish
Pagine294-294
Numero di pagine1
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2014

Fingerprint Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'THE IMPACT OF RE-TUR ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN A LARGE COHORT OF T1G3PATIENTS TREATED WITH BCG.'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

  • Cita questo