肌肉浸润性膀胱癌的膀胱保护方案。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Current Opinion in Urology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1097/MOU.0000000000001220
Ekaterina Laukhtina, Marco Moschini, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Shahrokh F Shariat
{"title":"肌肉浸润性膀胱癌的膀胱保护方案。","authors":"Ekaterina Laukhtina, Marco Moschini, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Shahrokh F Shariat","doi":"10.1097/MOU.0000000000001220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review critically evaluates the current state of bladder-sparing options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and provides an overview of future directions in the field.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Bladder-sparing treatments have emerged as viable alternatives to radical cystectomy (RC) for selected patients with MIBC, especially in those who are unfit for RC or elect bladder preservation. Numerous studies have assessed the efficacy of trimodal therapy (TMT), with outcomes comparable to RC in a subgroup of well selected patients. Combining immunotherapy with conventional treatments in bladder-sparing approaches can yield promising outcomes. Current research is making significant progress in optimizing treatment protocols by exploring new combinations of systemic therapy agents, innovative drug delivery methods, and biomarker-based approaches. Furthermore, clinical markers of response are being tested to ensure adequate response assessment.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Bladder preservation promise to offer a viable alternative to RC for selected patients with MIBC with the potential to improve patient quality of life. Careful patient selection and ongoing research are essential to optimize patient selection, response assessment, and salvage strategies. As evidence continues to evolve, the role of bladder preservation in MIBC is likely to expand, providing patients with more treatment options tailored to their needs and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":11093,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Urology","volume":" ","pages":"471-476"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bladder sparing options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Ekaterina Laukhtina, Marco Moschini, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Shahrokh F Shariat\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MOU.0000000000001220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review critically evaluates the current state of bladder-sparing options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and provides an overview of future directions in the field.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Bladder-sparing treatments have emerged as viable alternatives to radical cystectomy (RC) for selected patients with MIBC, especially in those who are unfit for RC or elect bladder preservation. Numerous studies have assessed the efficacy of trimodal therapy (TMT), with outcomes comparable to RC in a subgroup of well selected patients. Combining immunotherapy with conventional treatments in bladder-sparing approaches can yield promising outcomes. Current research is making significant progress in optimizing treatment protocols by exploring new combinations of systemic therapy agents, innovative drug delivery methods, and biomarker-based approaches. Furthermore, clinical markers of response are being tested to ensure adequate response assessment.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Bladder preservation promise to offer a viable alternative to RC for selected patients with MIBC with the potential to improve patient quality of life. Careful patient selection and ongoing research are essential to optimize patient selection, response assessment, and salvage strategies. As evidence continues to evolve, the role of bladder preservation in MIBC is likely to expand, providing patients with more treatment options tailored to their needs and preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Urology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"471-476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000001220\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000001220","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述的目的:本综述对肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)保膀治疗方案的现状进行了严格评估,并概述了该领域的未来发展方向:对于选定的肌浸润性膀胱癌患者,尤其是不适合接受根治性膀胱切除术或选择保留膀胱的患者,保留膀胱治疗已成为根治性膀胱切除术(RC)的可行替代方案。许多研究评估了三联疗法(TMT)的疗效,在经过严格筛选的亚组患者中,疗效与根治性膀胱切除术相当。在保留膀胱的治疗方法中,将免疫疗法与传统疗法相结合可产生良好的疗效。通过探索全身治疗药物的新组合、创新给药方法和基于生物标志物的方法,目前的研究在优化治疗方案方面取得了重大进展。此外,正在对反应的临床标志物进行测试,以确保进行充分的反应评估。总结:膀胱保留有望为选定的 MIBC 患者提供一种替代 RC 的可行方法,并有可能改善患者的生活质量。谨慎选择患者和持续开展研究对于优化患者选择、反应评估和挽救策略至关重要。随着证据的不断发展,保留膀胱治疗 MIBC 的作用可能会扩大,为患者提供更多适合其需求和偏好的治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bladder sparing options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Purpose of review: This review critically evaluates the current state of bladder-sparing options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and provides an overview of future directions in the field.

Recent findings: Bladder-sparing treatments have emerged as viable alternatives to radical cystectomy (RC) for selected patients with MIBC, especially in those who are unfit for RC or elect bladder preservation. Numerous studies have assessed the efficacy of trimodal therapy (TMT), with outcomes comparable to RC in a subgroup of well selected patients. Combining immunotherapy with conventional treatments in bladder-sparing approaches can yield promising outcomes. Current research is making significant progress in optimizing treatment protocols by exploring new combinations of systemic therapy agents, innovative drug delivery methods, and biomarker-based approaches. Furthermore, clinical markers of response are being tested to ensure adequate response assessment.

Summary: Bladder preservation promise to offer a viable alternative to RC for selected patients with MIBC with the potential to improve patient quality of life. Careful patient selection and ongoing research are essential to optimize patient selection, response assessment, and salvage strategies. As evidence continues to evolve, the role of bladder preservation in MIBC is likely to expand, providing patients with more treatment options tailored to their needs and preferences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Urology
Current Opinion in Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.00%
发文量
140
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Urology delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in urology from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring ten key topics – including focuses on prostate cancer, bladder cancer and minimally invasive urology – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信