Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026
An Orthotopic Bladder Tumor Model and the Evaluation of Intravesical saRNA Treatment
Published on: July 28, 2012
Role of repeat transurethral resection in no-muscle-invasive bladder tumour: an umbrella review
Qing-Xin Yu1,2, Rui-Cheng Wu3, Zhou-Ting Tuo4
1Department of Pathology, Ningbo Clinical Pathology Diagnosis Center, Ning 685 East Section of Huancheng North Road, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province 315211, China.
Background:
Repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumour (reTURB) is a conventional treatment for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) to enhance prognosis. However, the necessity of reTURB in NMIBC remains controversial owing to upstaging of treatments and new evidence.
Objectives:
We performed an umbrella review to determine the need for reTURB in patients with NMIBC.
Design:
We extracted data from meta-analyses that were screened out after a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Methods:
Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of each included meta-analysis and outcomes.
Results:
Our study included seven meta-analyses. Two studies assessed the efficiency of reTURB in patients who underwent en bloc resection of bladder tumours (ERBT). Patients who underwent ERBT reported low residual tumour and upstaging rates of 5.9% and 0.3%, respectively. Conversely, patients who underwent conventional transurethral resection for bladder cancer (cTURB) had high residual tumour rates. Patients who underwent cTURB and reTURB had significantly improved 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to those who underwent initial cTURB alone. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), a meta-analysis reported that patients who underwent cTURB and reTURB had significantly improved PFS compared with those who underwent initial cTURB alone. In the subgroup analyses of ERBT, reTURB did not affect the RFS and PFS of patients who received ERBT. Currently, only a limited number of randomised clinical trials have evaluated reTURB, and various factors have influenced its efficacy.
Conclusion:
There was significant variation in survival outcomes among patients undergoing reTURB. The necessity and efficacy of reTURB depend on numerous factors, such as surgical approach, equipment and medication usage. Patients eligible for ERBT may constitute a group that does not require reTURB. Further clinical trials are required to validate these findings.
Registration:
This umbrella review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023439078).
