Optimizing Outcomes for Patients With Curable Bladder Cancer

Video

This video highlights emerging data on genomic markers of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bladder cancer.

In this video, Elizabeth R. Plimack, MD, MS, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, discusses highlights of a session on bladder cancer from the 2017 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, held February 16–18 in Orlando, Florida.

Dr. Plimack chaired the session, which focused on optimizing outcomes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and gave a presentation on genomic markers of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Emerging data on alterations in DNA repair genes and their association with outcomes are informing clinical trial designs with the aim of studying the feasibility of reducing treatment burden for this patient population.

Newsletter

Stay up to date on recent advances in the multidisciplinary approach to cancer.

Recent Videos
Spatial transcriptomics and multiplex immunohistochemistry from samples may elucidate outcomes for patients who undergo surgical care for cancer.
Future work may focus on optimizing symptom management associated with percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy placement in malignant bowel obstructions.
Post-operative length of stay ranged from 4 to 9 days for patients who underwent percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy for malignant bowel obstructions.
Future research will aim to assess the efficacy of PIPAC-MMC plus systemic therapy vs systemic therapy alone in patients with peritoneal tumors.
Although small incision surgery may serve as a conduit to deliver PIPAC-MMC, it may confer benefits in the staging and treatment of peritoneal tumors.
Patients with peritoneal metastases were historically associated with limited survival and low consideration for clinical trials.
Findings from the OVARIO study show that patients with HRR–deficient and BRCA-mutated disease benefitted the most from niraparib/bevacizumab maintenance.
Select comorbidities, ECOG status, and the receipt of radiation were among the differences between a real-world cohort and the RUBY trial population.
Related Content