3.8 Article

Analysis of results of recurrence and progression rates of high-grade Ta bladder cancer and comparison with results of high-grade T1

Journal

UROLOGIA JOURNAL
Volume 81, Issue 4, Pages 237-241

Publisher

WICHTIG PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.5301/uro.5000072

Keywords

Urinary bladder neoplasm; Recurrence; Disease progression; High-grade Ta; High-grade T1

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the long-term recurrence and progression rates in a Turkish population with high-grade Ta and T1 bladder cancer and to determine malign potential of high-grade Ta bladder cancer. Methods: 191 patients who had non-invasive bladder cancer were evaluated at a single institution between 2005 and 2010. Median follow-up was 55.6 months (13-108). Long-term follow-up results of recurrence and progression rates of high-grade Ta and T1 were analyzed and compared with each other. Results: Of the 191 patients, 143 (74.9%) were high-grade T1 and 48 (25.1%) were high-grade Ta. Of the 143 patients who were high-grade T1, 39 (27.2%) responded to the induction BCG without recurrence. 33 (23%) patients had invasion deep into the muscle layer. 61 (42%) patients had recurred as high-grade T1. Of the 48 patients who were high-grade Ta, 15 (31%) responded to induction BCG without recurrence. 18 (37.5%) patients had recurrence as high-grade Ta. 12 (25%) patients had invasion deep into to the muscle layer. Of all the patients, 13 (7%) patients died of causes related to bladder cancer. In a multivariate analysis, concomitant CIS was statistically significant for the progression of high-grade Ta bladder cancer (p< 0.005). Conclusions: According to the data of the current study, the presence of concomitant CIS in patients with high-grade bladder cancers is associated with a higher risk of progression. There is a need for larger scale multi-institutional studies in order to support the hypothesis that high-grade Ta tumors should be considered as T1 tumors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available