Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: the case for early intervention

There are no prospective studies comparing early cystectomy versus cystectomy after failed conservative management in patients with high-risk superficial bladder cancer. In the absence of clinically proven biomarkers for predicting tumor biology and the response to therapy, the treatment decision must be individualized based on the high-risk features outlined herein. Assuming that all patients can be treated effectively with bladder-sparing regimens and safely salvaged at the time of failure or progression is dangerous. Data support the negative impact of a delay in cystectomy and argue for improvements in the timing of cystectomy despite the clinical absence of muscle invasion. Accordingly, high-risk patients with non-muscle invasive disease require vigilant follow-up and should be informed from the onset of the risk for progression and the possible need for cystectomy. Repeat resection before intravesical therapy in the patient with T1 tumor is advised and should help to improve, but will not completely eliminate, the problem of clinical under-staging. Among patients with CIS and recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive tumors, repeat biopsies following intravesical therapy are encouraged to ensure treatment response. Although there is debate regarding the timing of early cystectomy for patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, there is little doubt that, for muscle invasive disease, prompt cystectomy influences the effectiveness of this therapy choice. An unnecessary delay in the performance of radical cystectomy in patients with organ-confined bladder cancer compromises outcomes and risks potentially avoidable deaths from disease.