Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

Reasons why not all Danish patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Robotic versus laparoscopic urological surgery: incidence of reoperation and complications

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. The prognostic impact of incidental prostate cancer following radical cystoprostatectomy: a nationwide analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. A case of xanthogranulomatous inflammation of the urethra treatment with a steroid-based non-surgical approach

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Cytoreductive prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  5. Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: update of a prospective single-center cohort

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • Ninna Nielsen
  • Gitte Wrist Lam
  • Knud Fabrin
  • Per Holt
  • Peter Ole Thind
  • Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen
Vis graf over relationer

Background: Danish guidelines on muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for non-metastatic patients fit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The current indication is urothelial MIBC in patients less than 75 years old with no metastasis on imaging and normal renal function (GFR ≥ 60 ml/min). Data from the Danish Bladder Cancer Database (DaBlaCa-Data) reveals that only 40-50% of MIBC patients below 75 years of age receive NAC prior to cystectomy. The aim of this study was to clarify the reasons why the remaining patients do not receive NAC. Methods: Individual patient data were collected retrospectively from all five Danish urologic departments performing cystectomies. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria: MIBC at TURBT, age less than 75 years old and subsequent cystectomy were included and registered by the specific reason why NAC was not given. In total, 449 patients met the age- and T-stage criteria for NAC in the period September 2014 through August 2017. Results: In total, 274 patients (61.0%) received chemotherapy. Of the 175 patients who did not receive NAC, 140 patients (80%) were not fit for cisplatin and 35 patients did not receive NAC and had no specific contraindication. This ranged from 0-18% of included patients in the different centres. The main reason was patient refusal (97%). Interestingly, this ranged from 0-50% of patients not receiving NAC when comparing the five centres. Conclusion: These findings underline the need for proper patient information in order to get a uniform treatment strategy between centres.

TidsskriftScandinavian Journal of Urology
Sider (fra-til)1-4
Antal sider4
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 7 jun. 2019

ID: 58148046