En bloc transurethral resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Bladder cancer (BC) is a severe, and in some cases disabling disease for which no active detection strategy has been developed. It requires careful differential diagnosis, and is associated with a high risk for recurrence and progression. The choice of optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder Cancer (NMIBC) can reduce the rate of recurrence and improve oncologic outcomes. The development of the Vesical Imaging Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) protocol, which has high sensitivity and specificity for assessing the degree of tumor invasion into the detrusor, has been changing the paradigm for primary surgical treatment. The use of new protocol VI-RADS for MRI and intraoperative protocols DEpth of Endoscopic Perforation (DEEP) determine the treatment tactics. Frequency of detrusor presence after en bloc resection is 96-100%. The absence of circulating tumor cells in the peripheral bloodstream during en bloc resection compared to classic transurethral resection (TUR) has been proven. Safety profile and morphologic specimen are better with use of laser energy. Repeat TUR after en bloc resection if there was a negative surgical margin and detrusor was present in the specimen is left to the discretion of the physician. The pathomorphological study after en bloc resection of the bladder allows a more precise staging and may influence on treatment tactics for bladder cancer. En bloc transurethral resection can be recommended as a standard procedure for diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. P. Darenkov

FGBU “Central state medical academy” of Administrative Directorate of the President of Russian Federation

Email: darenkov@list.ru

Ph.D., MD, Professor, Head of the Department of Urology of FGBU “Central state medical academy” of Administrative Directorate of the President of Russian Federation, Chief urologist of the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russian Federation

Russian Federation, Moscow

E. A. Pronkin

FGBU “Central state medical academy” of Administrative Directorate of the President of Russian Federation; Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency

Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.pronkin@gmail.com

Ph.D., associate professor at the Department of Urology of FGBU “Central state medical academy” of Administrative Directorate of the President of Russian Federation; Head of the Urologic Department of Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

I. E. Musaev

Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency

Email: dr.pronkin@gmail.com

urologist

Russian Federation, Moscow

V. V. Novikov

Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency

Email: dr.pronkin@gmail.com

urologist 

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Clinical recommendations. Bladder cancer. 2022, p. 9. Russian (Клинические рекомендации. Рак мочевого пузыря. 2022, с. 9).
  2. Ferlay J., Steliarova-Foucher E., Lortet-Tieulent J., et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027.
  3. Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Petrova G.V. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017. Morbidity and mortality. Moscow, 2018. Russian (Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2017 г. Заболеваемость и смертность. М., 2018).
  4. Chavan S., Bray F., Lortet-Tieulent J., Goodman M., Jemal A. International variations in bladder cancer incidence and mortality. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):59–73. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.001.
  5. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2020 г. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Шахзадовой А.О. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России 2021;239 с. Russian (The state of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2020. Ed. Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Shakhzadova A.O. Moscow: P. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution «NMITs Radiology» of the Ministry of Health of Russia 2021;239 p.).
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health (US) How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. Center for Disease Control, and Prevention; Atlanta, GE, USA: 2010.
  7. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2004;83:1–1438.
  8. Zeegers M., Swaen G.M.H., Kant I., Goldbohm R., Brandt P.A.V.D. Occupational risk factors for male bladder cancer: results from a population-based case cohort study in the Netherlands. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001;58:590–596. doi: 10.1136/oem.58.9.590.
  9. Koutros S., et al. Diesel exhaust and bladder cancer risk by pathologic stage and grade subtypes. Environ Int, 2020. 135:105346.
  10. Burger M, Catto JW, Dalbagni G, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):234–241. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.033.
  11. Al-Zalabani A.H., Stewart K.F., Wesselius A., Schols A.M., Zeegers M.P. Modifiable risk factors for the prevention of bladder cancer: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(9):811–851. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0138-6.
  12. He H., Xie H., Chen Y., et al. Global, regional, and national burdens of bladder cancer in 2017: estimates from the 2017 global burden of disease study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1693. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09835-7.
  13. Cumberbatch K., He T., Thorogood Z., Gartrell B.A.. Emerging drugs for urothelial (bladder) cancer. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2017;22(2):149–164. doi: 10.1080/14728214.2017.1336536.
  14. DeGeorge K C , Holt H R , Hodges S C. Bladder Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(8):507-514.
  15. Panebianco V., Narumi Y., Altun E., et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Bladder Cancer: Development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur Urol. 2018;74:294–306. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029.
  16. Huang L., Kong Q., Liu Z., Wang J., Kang Z., Zhu Y. The Diagnostic Value of MR Imaging in Differentiating T Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2018;286(2):502–511. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171028.
  17. Pecoraro M., Takeuchi M., Vargas H.A., et al. Overview of VI-RADS in Bladder Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(6):1259–1268. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.22763.
  18. Panebianco V., Narumi Y., Altun E., et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Bladder Cancer: Development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):294–306. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029.
  19. Wong B.S., Duran C., Williams S.B. Vesical imaging reporting and data system (VI-RADS) and impact on identifying depth of invasion with subsequent management in bladder cancer patients: ready for prime time? Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(6):2467–2470. doi: 10.21037/tau-20-839.
  20. Panebianco V., Pecoraro M., Del Giudice F., et al. VI-RADS for Bladder Cancer: Current Applications and Future Developments. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022;55(1):23–36. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27361.
  21. Baroni R.H. A brief review of the VI-RADS classification for bladder tumors on MRI (and a call for increased interface, consistent communication and more joined studies by the radiological and urological communities). Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48(4):623–624. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0560.1.
  22. Smith A.K., Stephenson A.J., Lane B.R., et al. Inadequacy of biopsy for diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: implications for conservative management. Urology. 2011;78(1):82–86. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.038.
  23. Clements T., Messer J.C., Terrell J.D., et al. High-grade ureteroscopic biopsy is associated with advanced pathology of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma tumors at definitive surgical resection. J Endourol. 2012;26(4):398–402. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0426.
  24. Hsueh T.Y., Chiu A.W. Narrow band imaging for bladder cancer. Asian J Urol. 2016;3(3):126–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2016.05.001.
  25. Naselli A., Puppo P. Narrow band imaging and bladder cancer: when and how. Urologia. 2015;82 Suppl 2:S5–S8. doi: 10.5301/uro.5000156.
  26. Mowatt G.., N’Dow J., Vale L., et al. Photodynamic diagnosis of bladder cancer compared with white light cystoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):3–10. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310001364.
  27. Chou R., Selph S., Buckley D.I., et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Fluorescent Versus White Light Cystoscopy for Initial Diagnosis or Surveillance of Bladder Cancer on Clinical Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):548–558. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.061.
  28. Heer R., Lewis R., Duncan A., et al. Photodynamic versus white-light-guided resection of first-diagnosis non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: PHOTO RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2022;26(40):1–144. doi: 10.3310/PLPU1526.
  29. Beji S., Wrist Lam G., Østergren P.B., Toxvaerd A., Sønksen J., Fode M. Diagnostic value of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy versus conventional endoscopic biopsies of non-muscle invasive bladder tumors: a pilot study. Scand J Urol. 2021;55(1):36–40. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1841285.
  30. Liem E.I.M.L., Freund J.E., Savci-Heijink C.D., et al. Validation of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy Features of Bladder Cancer: The Next Step Towards Real-time Histologic Grading. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(1):81–87. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.012.
  31. Hayashi Y., Fujita K., Netto G.J., Nonomura N. Clinical Application of TERT Promoter Mutations in Urothelial Carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11:705440. Published 2021 Jul 29. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.705440.
  32. Teoh J.Y. et al. An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey, and a Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol. 2020;78:546.
  33. Kawada T., Ebihara K., Suzuki T., Imai K., Yamanaka H. A new technique for transurethral resection of bladder tumors: rotational tumor resection using a new arched electrode. J Urol. 1997;157(6):2225–2226.
  34. Diana P., Gallioli A., Fontana M., et al. Energy source comparison in en-bloc resection of bladder tumors: subanalysis of a single-center prospective randomized study [published online ahead of print, 2022 May 31]. World J Urol. 2022;1–7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04042-y.
  35. Teoh J.Y., MacLennan S., Chan V.W., et al. An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey, and a Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol. 2020;78(4):546–569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.059.
  36. Hu H., Zhou M., Yang B., Zhou S., Liu Z., Zhang J. A Systematic Review on the Role of Repeat Transurethral Resection after Initial en Bloc Resection for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. J Clin Med. 2022;11(17):5049. doi: 10.3390/jcm11175049.
  37. Huang H., Wang T., Ahmed M.G., et al. Retrograde en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder tumor can reduce the risk of seeding cancer cells into the peripheral circulation. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-1808-0.
  38. Breda A., Gallioli A., Diana P., et al. The DEpth of Endoscopic Perforation scale to assess intraoperative perforations during transurethral resection of bladder tumor: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial [published online ahead of print, 2022 Jun 4]. World J Urol. 2022;1-7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04052-w.
  39. Onishi T., Sekito S., Shibahara T., Uchida K., Sasaki T. The role of continuous saline bladder irrigation after transurethral resection in patients with high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018;52(5-6):385–388. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2018.1548502.
  40. Gondran-Tellier B., Abdallah R., Sichez P.C., et al. Continuous saline bladder irrigation after blue light transurethral resection of bladder tumor increases recurrence-free survival in low- to intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Prog Urol. 2021;31(6):316–323. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2021.01.011.
  41. Bani-Hani M., Abdel Majid A., Al-Zubi M.T., et al. Continuous Saline Bladder Irrigation in Reducing Recurrence and Progression When Compared to Immediate Mitomycin- C Instillation Post- Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Short Communication. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2022;23(1):171–175. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.1.171.
  42. Yanagisawa T., Mori K., Motlagh R.S., et al. En Bloc Resection for Bladder Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Differential Effect on Safety, Recurrence and Histopathology. J Urol. 2022;207(4):754–768. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002444.
  43. Li Z., Zhou Z., Cui Y., Zhang Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of perioperative outcomes and prognosis of transurethral en-bloc resection vs. conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Int J Surg. 2022;104:106777. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106777
  44. Xu J, Xu Z, Yin H, Zang J. Can a reresection be avoided after initial en bloc resection for high-risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:849929. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.849929.
  45. Di Y., Li H., He C., Peng H. En-bloc transurethral resection vs. conventional transurethral resection for primary non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A meta-analysis [published online ahead of print, 2022 Aug 6]. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2022;S2173-5786(22)00087-7. doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.08.012.
  46. O’Sullivan N.J., MacCraith E., Temperley H.C., Naughton A., Davis N.F. Standard Transurethral Resection vs Transurethral Laser Surgery for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Complications [published online ahead of print, 2023 Jan 23]. J Endourol. 2023;10.1089/end.2022.0328. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0328.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies