About this Research Topic
Bladder cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer and affects millions of people globally. The most common type of bladder cancer is non-muscle invasive (nMIBC) is treated with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) with or without intravesical therapies. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) is the most common intravesical therapeutic agent; however, bladder cancer can become refractory to BCG. In this instance, historical treatment would include other intravesical agents or radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion. More recently, intravenous immunotherapy with pembrolizumab has been approved for treatment of BCG-refractory nMIBC. Those patients who do not respond are recommended to undergo RC.
Muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which typically accounts for 25-30% of cases, has been shown to require a significantly more aggressive treatment plan compared to non-muscle invasive cancer as shown in multiple studies. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for eligible patients prior to radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection is currently the standard of care for MIBC; however, not all patients accept the need for RC. Therefore, studies to optimize outcomes for patients using bladder preservation are needed.
Historically, bladder preservation methods focused on transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT), radiotherapy or chemotherapy as a single-modality treatment but studies demonstrated these treatments did not achieved the desired clinical outcomes. Therefore, tri-multimodality therapy, which includes maximal TURBT followed by combination chemotherapy and radiation therapy has been proven to be more effective.
The goal of this Research Topic is to discuss what bladder preservation options exist currently for nMIBC and MIBC patients and how these options impact quality of life and patient satisfaction while maintaining optimal therapeutic outcomes. We welcome Original Research, Reviews, Systematic Reviews and Mini-Reviews.
Please note: manuscripts consisting solely of bioinformatics or computational analysis of public genomic or transcriptomic databases which are not accompanied by validation (independent cohort or biological validation in vitro or in vivo) are out of scope for this section and will not be accepted as part of this Research Topic.
Muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which typically accounts for 25-30% of cases, has been shown to require a significantly more aggressive treatment plan compared to non-muscle invasive cancer as shown in multiple studies. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for eligible patients prior to radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection is currently the standard of care for MIBC; however, not all patients accept the need for RC. Therefore, studies to optimize outcomes for patients using bladder preservation are needed.
Historically, bladder preservation methods focused on transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT), radiotherapy or chemotherapy as a single-modality treatment but studies demonstrated these treatments did not achieved the desired clinical outcomes. Therefore, tri-multimodality therapy, which includes maximal TURBT followed by combination chemotherapy and radiation therapy has been proven to be more effective.
The goal of this Research Topic is to discuss what bladder preservation options exist currently for nMIBC and MIBC patients and how these options impact quality of life and patient satisfaction while maintaining optimal therapeutic outcomes. We welcome Original Research, Reviews, Systematic Reviews and Mini-Reviews.
Please note: manuscripts consisting solely of bioinformatics or computational analysis of public genomic or transcriptomic databases which are not accompanied by validation (independent cohort or biological validation in vitro or in vivo) are out of scope for this section and will not be accepted as part of this Research Topic.
Keywords: bladder cancer, genitourinary oncology, cancer, preservation
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
