Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Nov-Dec;35(6):640-50; discussion 651.
doi: 10.1590/s1677-55382009000600002.

Intravesical therapy for urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a critical review

Affiliations
Review

Intravesical therapy for urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a critical review

Daher C Chade et al. Int Braz J Urol. 2009 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

The management of non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) is a challenge for physicians and patients alike. This is largely due to the heterogeneous natural history of this disease, in which tumors range from indolent to rapidly progressive and eventually fatal. Moreover, the high rate of recurrence and progression cause significant morbidity, expense, and detriment to quality of life. The advent of effective and safe intravesical therapies has improved the management of non-muscle-invasive UCB. Nevertheless, despite over 30 years of research and clinical experience, the mechanism, risks, benefits, and optimal regimens and treatment algorithms remain unclear. Although immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) has been the mainstay of intravesical treatment and represents a significant advance in the interaction of immunology and oncology, its clinical effectiveness is accompanied by a wide range of adverse events. Here, we review the literature on intravesical immunotherapy and chemotherapy with the aim of evaluating the clinical utility of the different treatments and providing recommendations. Many studies over the years have compared efficacy and toxicities of different agents and regimens, and certain conclusions are now well supported by high-level evidence. Future perspectives and promising advances in drug development are discussed and areas of improvement are identified in order to promote better cancer control and decrease the rate and severity of side-effects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Parkin DM. The global burden of urinary bladder cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2008;218:12–20. - PubMed
    1. Kirkali Z, Chan T, Manoharan M, Algaba F, Busch C, Cheng L, et al. Bladder cancer: epidemiology, staging and grading, and diagnosis. Urology. 2005;66:4–34. - PubMed
    1. Sylvester RJ. Natural history, recurrence, and progression in superficial bladder cancer. Scientific World-Journal. 2006;6:2617–2625. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pawinski A, Sylvester R, Kurth KH, Bouffioux C, van der Meijden A, Parmar MK, et al. A combined analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and Medical Research Council randomized clinical trials for the prophylactic treatment of stage TaT1 bladder cancer. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council Working Party on Superficial Bladder Cancer. J Urol. 1996;156:1934–1940. discussion 1940-1. - PubMed
    1. Crispen R. History of BCG and its substrains. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1989;310:35–50. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms