Defining the optimal duration of maintenance mitomycin C in intermediate-risk Ta NMIBC: a multicenter retrospective landmark analysis
- PMID: 41483136
- DOI: 10.1007/s11255-025-04946-9
Defining the optimal duration of maintenance mitomycin C in intermediate-risk Ta NMIBC: a multicenter retrospective landmark analysis
Abstract
Purpose: While mitomycin C (MMC) is widely used for intravesical therapy, the optimal maintenance regimen for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) remains unclear. This study assessed the impact of MMC maintenance on recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with intermediate-risk Ta NMIBC and aimed to identify the optimal number of instillations for improved outcomes.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis of patients with Ta NMIBC treated with transurethral resection and adjuvant MMC across 13 Italian centers (2010-2023). Patients were grouped based on MMC maintenance duration: no maintenance, short-term (≤ 6 instillations), and long-term (> 6 instillations). Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, and CART analysis were used to evaluate RFS and high-grade RFS (HG-RFS).
Results: Among 292 patients included, maintenance therapy significantly improved 2-year and 3-year RFS compared to no maintenance (78% vs. 55% and 67% vs. 30%, respectively; p < 0.001). CART analysis identified > 6 instillations as the threshold for optimal benefit. Long-term maintenance was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (HR 0.23 vs. no maintenance; HR 0.39 vs. short-term; both p < 0.001). No significant difference in HG-RFS was observed between no maintenance, long-term, and short-term groups.
Conclusion: Long-term MMC maintenance (> 6 instillations) significantly prolongs RFS in patients with Ta NMIBC. These findings suggest that extended MMC regimens may improve patients' outcomes and should be considered in clinical practice. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and guide evidence-based treatment strategies.
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Instillation duration; Landmark analysis; Mitomycin C; Ta NMIBC.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are no competing interests.
References
-
- Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Jemal A (2025) Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J Clin 75(1):10–45. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21871 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Gontero P et al (2024) European Association of Urology Guidelines on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (TaT1 and carcinoma in situ)—a summary of the 2024 guidelines update. Eur Urol 86(6):531–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.07.027 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Scilipoti P et al (2024) Mitomycin C vs. Bacillus Calmette–Guerin for treatment of intermediate-risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer patients—a comparative analysis from a single center. Urol Oncol 42(12):451.e1–451.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.06.026 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Scilipoti P et al (2024) The role of mitomycin C in intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 7(6):1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.005 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Matloubieh JE, Hanelin D, Agalliu I (2024) Comparisons of intravesical treatments with mitomycin C, gemcitabine, and docetaxel for recurrence and progression of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16244125 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
