File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03317-4
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85065808476
- PMID: 30895765
- WOS: WOS:000469464100001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Bladder-sparing treatment in MIBC: Where do we stand?
Title | Bladder-sparing treatment in MIBC: Where do we stand? |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Drug therapy Immunotherapy Radiotherapy Urinary bladder neoplasms |
Issue Date | 2019 |
Citation | Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica, 2019, v. 71, n. 2, p. 101-112 How to Cite? |
Abstract | 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. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328758 |
ISSN | 2020 Impact Factor: 3.720 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.340 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Murali-Krishnan, Srikanth | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pang, Karl H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Greco, Francesco | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fiori, Cristian | - |
dc.contributor.author | Catto, James W. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Vavassori, Vittorio L. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Esperto, Francesco | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-22T06:23:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-07-22T06:23:41Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica, 2019, v. 71, n. 2, p. 101-112 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0393-2249 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328758 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica | - |
dc.subject | Drug therapy | - |
dc.subject | Immunotherapy | - |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy | - |
dc.subject | Urinary bladder neoplasms | - |
dc.title | Bladder-sparing treatment in MIBC: Where do we stand? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03317-4 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 30895765 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85065808476 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 71 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 101 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 112 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1827-1758 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000469464100001 | - |