Compact Intravesical Instillations of Anthracyclines as Prophylaxis for Recurrence after Transurethral Resection of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer:a Prospective,Randomized Controlled Study

Baojun GU,Chao FENG,Hong XIE,Zhangshun LIU,Lujie SONG,Ying LIU,Xinru ZHANG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-1420.2011.04.004
2011-01-01
Journal of Clinical Urology
Abstract:Objective:To evaluate the effect of compact anthracyclines intravesical chemotherapy as prophylaxis for recurrence after transurethral resection(TUR) of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer(NM1BC).Methods: From 2006.1 to 2008.12,221 NMIBC patients underwent TUR in our hospital.Patients were randomized into two groups.Group A patients were treated with intravesical instillation of epirubicin(EPI) 40 mg/ 40 ml saline every week for 8 weeks.Group B patients were continuously administrated with same dose EPI every month for 10 months after the same schedule as group A was finished.The results of every 3 months regular cystoscopy exam were recorded.The follow up were ended when tumor recurred or no tumor recurrence was reported 24 months after TUR.Resnlts:141 patients completed their documents.45 cases(31.9%) was found tumor recurrence,23 and 22 patients were found in each group,respectively.No statistical difference was found between two groups(P = 0.64).The recurrence time of both groups was(8.73±5.23) mo and(8.74±4.42) mo,respectively.8 patients (11.8%) were found tumor progressed in Group A while 7 patients(9.6%) were found in Group B(P=0.675). Further stratified statistical analysis showed that there was no difference in free tumor recurrence rate between two groups,whatever in the aspect of the tumor size,solitary tumor or not,first occurred or recurred patients,the pathologic findings and clinical staging in each group was compared.Conclusions:Compact anthracyclines intravesical instillation after TUR has the same recurrence prevention effectiveness as the regular intravesical schedule.The monthly intravesical instillation followed compact schedule seems unnecessary for recurrence prophylaxis.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?