Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Management of MIBC

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Guide to Management of Urological Cancers

  • 180 Accesses

Abstract

At presentation, approximately 25% of patients will have muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), and patients with non-MIBC may subsequently progress to MIBC. Prognosis is dependent on TNM stage (Table 12.1) and pelvic lymph node status. The disease requires a multi-disciplinary approach, encompassing surgeon, oncologist, radiologist, pathologist and cancer specialist nurse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Witjes JA, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2020 guidelines. Eur Urol. 2021;79(1):82–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shelley MD, et al. Surgery versus radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;1:CD002079.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gore JL, et al. Mortality increases when radical cystectomy is delayed more than 12 weeks: results from a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-Medicare analysis. Cancer. 2009;115:988.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruins HM, et al. The importance of hospital and surgeon volume as major determinants of morbidity and mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review and recommendations by the European Association of Urology muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer guideline panel. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stenzl A, et al. Cystectomy—technical considerations in male and female patients. EAU Updat Ser. 2005;3:138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hernandez V, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes of sexual function-preserving cystectomy compared with standard radical cystectomy in men: a systematic review. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:539.e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Veskimae E, et al. Systematic review of the oncological and functional outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (RC) compared with standard RC in women who undergo curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hammond J, et al. Rates of venous thromboembolism among patients with major surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tarin TV, et al. Lymph node-positive bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy and lymphadenectomy: effect of the level of node positivity. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1025–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dorin RP, et al. Lymph node dissection technique is more important than lymph node count in identifying nodal metastases in radical cystectomy patients: a comparative mapping study. Eur Urol. 2011;60:946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perera M, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15(11):686–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bruins HM, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wright JL, et al. The association between extent of lymphadenectomy and survival among patients with lymph node metastases undergoing radical cystectomy. Cancer. 2008;112:2401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rai BP, et al. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD011903.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Venkatramani V, et al. Predictors of recurrence, and progression-free and overall survival following open versus robotic radical cystectomy: analysis from the RAZOR trial with a 3-year followup. J Urol. 2020;203:522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parekh DJ, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:2525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rai BP, et al. Robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults. BJU Int. 2020;125(6):765–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hussein AA, et al. Outcomes of intracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. J Urol. 2018;199:1302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang JH, et al. Large single institution comparison of perioperative outcomes and complications of open radical cystectomy, intracorporeal robot-assisted radical cystectomy and robotic extracorporeal approach. J Urol. 2020;203:512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Novotny V, et al. Perioperative complications of radical cystectomy in a contemporary series. Eur Urol. 2007;51(2):397–401; discussion 401–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hautmann RE, et al. Long-term results of standard procedures in urology: the ileal neobladder. World J Urol. 2006;24(3):305–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yossepowitch O, et al. Orthotopic urinary diversion after cystectomy for bladder cancer: implications for cancer control and patterns of disease recurrence. J Urol. 2003;169:177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Check DK, et al. Decision regret related to urinary diversion choice among patients treated with cystectomy. J Urol. 2020;203(1):159–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang LS, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life outcomes after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Surg Oncol. 2016;25(3):281–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Giacalone NJ, et al. Long-term outcomes after bladder-preserving tri-modality therapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an updated analysis of the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Eur Urol. 2017;71:952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eswara JR, et al. Complications and long-term results of salvage cystectomy after failed bladder sparing therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2012;187:463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Volkmer BG, et al. Oncological follow up after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer-is there any benefit? J Urol. 2009;181(4):1587–93; discussion 1593.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2003;361(9373):1927–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meeks JJ, et al. A systematic review of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):523–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Galsky MD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(15):2586–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pfister C, et al. Randomized phase III trial of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin, or gemcitabine and cisplatin as perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Analysis of the GETUG/AFU V05 VESPER trial secondary endpoints: chemotherapy toxicity and pathological responses. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):214–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pfister C, et al. VESPER trial investigators. Randomized phase III trial of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and Cisplatin, or gemcitabine and Cisplatin as perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Analysis of the GETUG/AFU V05 VESPER trial secondary endpoints: chemotherapy toxicity and pathological responses. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):214–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Powles T, et al. Clinical efficacy and biomarker analysis of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in operable urothelial carcinoma in the abacus trial. Nat Med. 2019;25:1706–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Necchi A, et al. Updated results of pure-01 with preliminary activity of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma with variant histologies. Eur Urol. 2020;77:439–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Grande E, et al. Dutreneo trial: a randomized phase ii trial of durvalumab and tremelimumab versus chemotherapy as a neoadjuvant approach to muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer (MIBC) patients (PTS) prospectively selected by an interferon (inf)-gamma immune signature. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:5012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van Dijk N, et al. Preoperative ipilimumab plus nivolumab in locoregionally advanced urothelial cancer: the nabucco trial. Nat Med. 2020;26:1839–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta S, et al. Results from blasst-1 (bladder cancer signal seeking trial) of nivolumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing cystectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaimakliotis HZ, et al. Phase II neoadjuvant (N-) gemcitabine (G) and pembrolizumab (P) for locally advanced Urothelial cancer (lauc): interim results from the cisplatin (c)-ineligible cohort of gu14-188. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:5019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Leow JJ, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer: a 2013 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):42–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Del Bene G, et al. Neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemotherapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): analysis from the RISC database. Front Oncol. 2018;8:463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim HS, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Oncotarget. 2017;8(46):81204–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Birtle A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1268–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bajorin DF, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(22):2102–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Nishikawa M, et al. Long-term changes in renal function outcomes following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19:1105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Isbarn H, et al. A population based assessment of perioperative mortality after cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2009;182:70–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tanaka H, Kijima T, Fujii Y. Bladder preservation therapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: current evidence and future perspectives. AME Med J. 2020;5:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. van der Steen-Banasik E, et al. Brachytherapy versus cystectomy in solitary bladder cancer: a case control, multicentre, East-Netherlands study. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93(2):352–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Blank LE, et al. Results of bladder-conserving treatment, consisting of brachytherapy combined with limited surgery and external beam radiotherapy, for patients with solitary T1-T3 bladder tumors less than 5 cm in diameter. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(2):454–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. James ND, et al. BC2001 investigators. Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1477–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gabrilove JL, et al. Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(22):1414–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van der Heijden MS, et al. Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a long-term overall survival and safety update from the phase 3 imvigor211 clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2021;80:7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Powles T, et al. Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or metastatic Urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(13):1218–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fradet Y, et al. Randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine in recurrent advanced urothelial cancer: results of >2 years of follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(6):970–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Powles T, et al. Enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1125–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ghahestani SM, et al. Palliative treatment of intractable hematuria in context of advanced bladder cancer: a systematic review. Urol J. 2009;6:149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ok JH, et al. Medical and surgical palliative care of patients with urological malignancies. J Urol. 2005;174:1177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK

    John Hayes, Saachi Chhaya, Harry Manning, Kenrick Ng, Anand Sharma & Nikhil Vasdev

Authors
  1. John Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saachi Chhaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harry Manning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kenrick Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anand Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nikhil Vasdev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Hayes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Prabhjot Singh

  2. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Brusabhanu Nayak

  3. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Sridhar Panaiyadiyan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hayes, J., Chhaya, S., Manning, H., Ng, K., Sharma, A., Vasdev, N. (2023). Management of MIBC. In: Singh, P., Nayak, B., Panaiyadiyan, S. (eds) A Guide to Management of Urological Cancers. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2341-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2341-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-2340-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-2341-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation