Oncological and safety profiles in patients undergoing simultaneous transurethral resection (TUR) of bladder tumour and TUR of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological impact and adverse events of performing simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURB) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as evidence on the outcomes of simultaneous TURB for bladder cancer and TURP for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia is limited and contradictory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 12 European hospitals treated with either TURB alone or simultaneous TURB and TURP (TURB+TURP) were retrospectively analysed. A propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 was performed with patients from the TURB+TURP group matched to TURB-alone patients. Associations between surgery approach with recurrence-free (RFS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals were assessed in Cox regression models before and after PSM. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with risk factors for recurrence (multifocality and/or tumour size >3 cm). RESULTS: A total of 762 men were included, among whom, 76% (581) underwent a TURB alone and 24% (181) a TURB+TURP. There was no difference in terms of tumour characteristics between the groups. We observed comparable length of stay as well as complication rates including major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) for the TURB-alone vs TURB+TURP groups, while the latest led to longer operative time (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 44 months, there were more recurrences in the TURB-alone (47%) compared to the TURB+TURP group (28%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were more recurrences at the bladder neck/prostatic fossa in the TURB-alone group (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001). TURB+TURP procedures were associated with improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001), but not PFS (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.90-2.98; P = 0.11). Within the PSM cohort of 254 patients, the simultaneous TURB+TURP was still associated with improved RFS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; P < 0.001). This was also true in the subgroup of 380 patients with recurrence risk factors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our contemporary cohort, simultaneous TURB and TURP seems to be an oncologically safe option that may, even, improve RFS by potentially preventing disease recurrence at the bladder neck and in the prostatic fossa.

Carboplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation after radical cystectomy in patients with pN1-3 urothelial bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: To test the impact of carboplatin-based ACT on overall survival (OS) in patients with pN1-3 cM0 BCa. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1057 patients with pTany pN1-3 cM0 urothelial BCa treated with or without carboplatin-based ACT after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymph-node dissection between 2002 and 2018 at 12 European and North-American hospitals. No patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Only patients with negative surgical margins at surgery were included. A 3:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using logistic regression to adjust for baseline characteristics. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to predict the effect of carboplatin-based ACT on OS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to display OS in the matched cohort. RESULTS: Of the 1057 patients included in the study, 69 (6.5%) received carboplatin-based ACT. After PSM, 244 total patients were identified in two cohorts that did not differ for baseline characteristics. Death was recorded in 114 (46.7%) patients over a median follow-up of 19 months. In the multivariable Cox regression analyses, increasing age at surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.06, p < 0.001) and increasing number of positive lymph nodes (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of worse OS. The delivery of carboplatin-based ACT was not predictive of improved OS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.04, p = 0.08). The main limitations of this study are its retrospective design and the relatively low number of patients involved. CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin-based might not improve OS in patients with pN1-3 cM0 BCa. Our results underline the need for alternative therapies for cisplatin-ineligible patients.