Comparison of the overall survival of different treatment methods in patients with Muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A retrospective study.
Radical cystectomy
bladder cancer
bladder preservation
chemotherapy
oncology
radiotherapy
survival rate
trimodal therapy
urology
Journal
Urologia
ISSN: 1724-6075
Titre abrégé: Urologia
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417372
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jun 2024
12 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline:
13
6
2024
pubmed:
13
6
2024
entrez:
13
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Bladder-Sparing Approach was presented in patients who are not willing or not suitable for Radical Cystectomy (RC). There have been inconsistencies in the literature regarding the comparison of survival rates of these two methods. Our objective is to evaluate the survival rate of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing different treatment methods. Retrospective cross-sectional study. A secondary care, multicenter study in Kerman, Iran 2008 to 2016. All 200 patients who were diagnosed with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer and were admitted to our hospitals. Patients with inaccessible medical files and patients with pathologies other than TCC were excluded. Radical cystectomy and different methods of bladder preservation were compared based on their survival rate. Radical cystectomy or bladder preservation. Overall survival of the patients was 2 years [95% CI: 1.37-2.63]. The overall 5-year survival rate of patients with MIBC was 32%. Having a 6.4 years overall survival, the RC group showed the highest survival compared with others ( The Bladder-Preservation method, as a replacement for RC, showed a lower overall survival rate in our study. A prospective randomized clinical trial may declare the best treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38867469
doi: 10.1177/03915603241256009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3915603241256009Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.