Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1484 2023-03-09 21:31:02 |
2 format correction -5 word(s) 1479 2023-03-10 03:31:15 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Shi, Y.; Mathis, B.J.; He, Y.; Yang, X. Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42046 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
Shi Y, Mathis BJ, He Y, Yang X. Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42046. Accessed June 20, 2024.
Shi, Ying, Bryan J. Mathis, Yayun He, Xiong Yang. "Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42046 (accessed June 20, 2024).
Shi, Y., Mathis, B.J., He, Y., & Yang, X. (2023, March 09). Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42046
Shi, Ying, et al. "Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 March, 2023.
Treatment Paradigms for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Edit

Bladder cancer is a common disease in men and the elderly. Current treatment paradigms include radical resection of the bladder and lymph nodes or transurethral resection, both supported by chemotherapy and/or radiation. New modalities, such as illumination-based therapies are also being translationally pursued.

muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis therapeutics exosome

1. BCG as the First Line

NMIBC is often first treated with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), a biotic therapy originally used as a killed tuberculosis vaccine strain, to train the immune system and evasion of this therapy may result in tumor progression [1]. A first-line adjuvant therapy, BCG treatment is effective in about 50% of patients, with the rest either failing to respond, relapsing, or having adverse events [2]. Originally thought to be wholly immune-centered around CD8+ T cells, evidence exists that also demonstrates some direct tumoricidal activity of the bacteria (putatively via oxidative stress or necrotic pathway activation) but increases in PD-L1 expression on tumor cell surfaces might explain BCG evasion [3]. However, for non-responders, valrubicin or pembrolizumab (anti-PD-L1) are the only FDA/European Medicines Agency-approved therapies for NMIBC if BCG is ineffective [4].

2. Surgery Types: Radical Cystectomy plus Neo-Adjuvant Therapy

Although radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (RC/PLND) is the current gold standard for MIBC, can result in an R0 (complete cure) condition, and has additional benefits in preventing metastasis, it has side effects that can be devastating for quality of life (incontinence, impotence, neurologic damage) and some patients are unsuitable for such surgery. It is the main line of treatment for progressive or de novo MIBC; however, RC alone is also not a definitive treatment, as 5-year survival rates of 40–60% and recurrence in as little as 12 months have been reported [5]. For this reason, RC is usually combined with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to maximize tumor control before and after surgery. Neo-adjuvant cisplatin with RC is the currently recommended multimodal treatment standard for MIBC [6].
While the use of chemotherapy with RC seems obvious, NAC has been reported as underutilized, with less than 20% of patients in the US between 2004–2014 having received it [7]. Meanwhile, a recent meta-study of 35,738 patients in 13 reports found that only 17.2% of patients underwent NAC regimens [8]. Since complete, partial, and downstaged response rates were 16.6%, 14.6%, and 45.0% in that study, NAC may be an important weapon against UC progression [8]. Another meta-study of 8 reports found NAC + RC was superior to RC alone with regard to overall survival (OS; HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68–0.92, p = 0.002), bolstering the utility of NAC to provide improved MIBC prognoses [9].

3. Trimodal Bladder-Preserving Treatment (TMT)

Trimodal therapy (TMT), consisting of combined chemo- and radiotherapies plus TURBT, has been adopted as an alternative to RC/PLND in selected patients [10]. Such bladder-sparing improves quality of life but requires optimal patient selection with regard to co-morbidities and tumor status (ideally cT2 with no carcinoma in situ) [11]. However, an insufficient number of clinical trials prevents the full clarification of survival and quality-of-life improvements that may be possible with TMT. A recent report simulated 500,000 patients with a 2-D Markov model and, in comparisons between RC and TMT, found that TMT had slightly higher quality of life in elderly patients while RC had better overall survival and life quality in younger patients [10]. Similarly, a US study of 2306 military veterans with MIBC found that TMT was associated with comparable survival to RC with neoadjuvant chemotherapy but only in patients older than 65 years of age [12]. Thus, the utility of TMT may be comparable at best in some patients but worse in older patients. Additionally, a 2018 meta-study of 57 total studies and 30,293 patients found that, while TMT mean 10-year OS was insignificantly lower than RC (30.9% TMT vs. 35.1% RC, p = 0.32), it was chemotherapy response that determined the best survival results with TMT [13]. The concept of RC for long-term survival superiority was also questioned by a 2020 metasudy by Ding et al that found superior OS results for RC after 10 years but only when Charlson comorbidity scores were 0 [14]. Furthermore, within that 10-year timeframe, TMT was comparable, indicating that TMT is a valid therapeutic option for patients who are unsuited for RC or who do not wish to undergo radical resection [14].
These data indicate that, while R0 resection is considered curative, long-term survival also depends on a complete response to chemotherapy and selection of chemoagents by using predictive models for response is therefore a critical component of improving TMT performance. Several proposed and current trials that may finely tune response rate predictive models are currently exploring combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiation for cisplatin and RC-ineligible patients [15][16]. As such, maintaining a maximum level of tumor control with TMT requires accurate and precise biomarkers to select the proper chemotherapy agents as well as to monitor progress after treatment. The current requirement of frequent CT/MRI or cystoscopy to monitor progress is not clinically feasible and cannot accurately predict resistance to therapy.

4. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Since atezolizumab was first approved by FDA for metastatic UC in 2016, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4, which target angiogenesis and sensitize the immune response to limit both tumor growth and metastasis, are frequently employed as an adjuvant therapy combined with chemotherapy. Anti-PD-L1 therapy on cancer cells prevents binding of PD-1 on T cells to increase apoptosis while CTLA-4 blocks CD80 and CD86 activity, downregulating Treg-mediated immunoregulation and increasing CD8+ cytotoxic activity [17]. In this fashion, antitumor T cell activity is maximized. Both types of drugs are often combined (ICI-ICI) to starve the tumor and increase immune effectiveness since a metastudy of 2 RCTs with 1518 total patients found ICI treatment alone (atezolizumab or nivolumab) was not significantly useful in high-risk muscle-invasive UC [18]. Conversely, a study (CheckMate 032) of combined PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg) found response rate of 38.0% in 92 patients receiving both drugs [19]. Adverse events must also be considered, as a metastudy of 21 reports with 11,454 patients total who received nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, or ipilimumab found a higher incidence of non-fatal adverse events [20]. With the promising results of adjuvant immunotherapy, clinical trials of neoadjunctive immunotherapy have been intensively carried out.
Much effort has been made to look for reliable biomarkers for predicting response to ICIs, such as PD-L1 or CD8 expression by immunohistochemistry [21][22][23][24] and/or tumor mutation burden (TMB) [25]. Unfortunately, these biomarkers have not yet to be verified in large clinical trials [24][26].

5. FGFR Inhibitors

FGFR3 is a common mutation found in patients with MIBC [27]. Erdafitinib, a pan-FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is the first FDA-approved targeted therapy for mUC with susceptible FGFR2/3 alterations following platinum-containing chemotherapy. A phase II trial of 99 enrolled patients with local advanced and unresectable/metastatic UC with an FGFR3 mutation or FGFR2/3 fusion observed disease progression in all patients following chemotherapy [28]. The confirmed response rate was 40% while an additional 39% of patients were stabilized. For 22 patients with previous immunotherapy, the erdafitinib response rate was 59%. At 24 months median follow-up, the median overall survival was 11.3 months. Adverse events of >grade 3 related to treatment occurred in 46% of patients while 13% had to discontinue erdafitinib due to adverse events [28]. Based on those results, several other FGFR inhibitors are being evaluated, including infigratinib, which has demonstrated promising activity [29].

6. Future Treatments Compatible with TMT and RC

Even with an absence of viable biomarkers for prediction and treatment management, development of new modalities for bladder cancer continue to increase specificity by combining drugs with antibody conjugates (antibody-conjugated drugs; ADC). Unlike ICIs, these drugs are manufactured to deliver cytotoxic molecules via antibodies (usually IgG) engineered for strong interaction with specific tumor antigens and very little cross-reactivity [30]. Connecting links between the antibody and payload are usually constructed of disulfide- or protease-dependent bonds in order to prevent premature release of the payload and to exploit the acidic pH and ROS-intensive microenvironments of tumors that are likely to sever the linker [30]. Then, cytotoxic molecules such as auristatins (microtubule destabilizers), maytansinoids, DNA alkylators, or proteotoxins (protein synthesis inhibitors) are connected to the scaffold as effector payloads to slow tumor cell growth and prevent replication. Other antibody-based fusion techniques concurrently being developed to stimulate immunogenic responses (e.g., ALT-803) and deliver current ICIs with higher specificity (e.g., ATOR-1015) have been extensively reviewed by Bogen et al. [31].
With the discovery of fucolsylated glycans as potential biomarkers for pancreatic, MIBC, and other cancers, the potential of lectin-targeted payload delivery to MIBC has become feasible [32][33]. Lectin specificity to these glycans is possible with recombinant technology and future sequencing studies on diverse bladder cancer specimens could allow for a glycan-lectin binding library to be constructed for targeting both non-invasive and invasive bladder cancers [34]. Additionally, these lectins are amenable to conjugation with nontoxic, photoreactive dyes that respond to near-infrared (NIR) light by conformational changes that induce necrotic death in cells [35]. A paper by Kuroda et al. has demonstrated the feasibility of this system for pancreatic cancer in a murine model [36]. Since NIR is harmless to human tissue and cystoscopes already have illumination capability, addition of NIR light and lectin-conjugated dye systems to TURBT may be a possibility that removes residual disease and promotes complete response.

References

  1. Hensley, P.J.; Bree, K.K.; Campbell, M.T.; Alhalabi, O.; Kokorovic, A.; Miest, T.; Nogueras-Gonzalez, G.M.; Gao, J.; Siefker-Radtke, A.O.; Guo, C.C.; et al. Progression of Disease after Bacillus Calmette-Guerin Therapy: Refining Patient Selection for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy before Radical Cystectomy. J. Urol. 2021, 206, 1258–1267.
  2. Suh, J.; Yoo, S. Role of immunotherapy in Bacillus Calmette-Guerin unresponsive: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Transl. Cancer Res. 2020, 9, 6537–6545.
  3. Han, J.; Gu, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, Q. Mechanisms of BCG in the treatment of bladder cancer-current understanding and the prospect. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 129, 110393.
  4. Shore, N.D.; Palou Redorta, J.; Robert, G.; Hutson, T.E.; Cesari, R.; Hariharan, S.; Rodriguez Faba, O.; Briganti, A.; Steinberg, G.D. Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: An overview of potential new treatment options. Urol. Oncol. 2021, 39, 642–663.
  5. Ogawa, K.; Shimizu, Y.; Uketa, S.; Utsunomiya, N.; Kanamaru, S. Prognosis of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer who are intolerable to receive any anti-cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Res. Commun. 2020, 24, 100195.
  6. Apolo, A.B.; Msaouel, P.; Niglio, S.; Simon, N.; Chandran, E.; Maskens, D.; Perez, G.; Ballman, K.V.; Weinstock, C. Evolving Role of Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Kidney and Urothelial Cancers. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2022, 42, 311–326.
  7. Carvalho, F.L.; Zeymo, A.; Egan, J.; Kelly, C.H.; Zheng, C.; Lynch, J.H.; Hwang, J.; Stamatakis, L.; Krasnow, R.E.; Kowalczyk, K.J. Determinants of neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Investig. Clin. Urol. 2020, 61, 390–396.
  8. Liu, W.; Tian, J.; Zhang, S.; Yang, E.; Shen, H.; Li, F.; Li, K.; Zhang, T.; Wang, H.; Svatek, R.S.; et al. The utilization status of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2021, 73, 144–153.
  9. Kang, D.H.; Cho, K.S.; Moon, Y.J.; Chung, D.Y.; Jung, H.D.; Lee, J.Y. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival of patients with T2-4aN0M0 bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendation. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0267410.
  10. Magee, D.; Cheung, D.; Hird, A.; Sridhar, S.S.; Catton, C.; Chung, P.; Berlin, A.; Warde, P.; Zlotta, A.; Fleshner, N.; et al. Trimodal therapy vs. radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A Markov microsimulation model. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2022, 16, E197–E204.
  11. Tholomier, C.; Souhami, L.; Kassouf, W. Bladder-sparing protocols in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2020, 9, 2920–2937.
  12. Kumar, A.; Cherry, D.R.; Courtney, P.T.; Nalawade, V.; Kotha, N.; Riviere, P.J.; Efstathiou, J.; McKay, R.R.; Karim Kader, A.; Rose, B.S.; et al. Outcomes for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer with Radical Cystectomy or Trimodal Therapy in US Veterans. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2021, 30, 1–10.
  13. Fahmy, O.; Khairul-Asri, M.G.; Schubert, T.; Renninger, M.; Malek, R.; Kubler, H.; Stenzl, A.; Gakis, G. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the oncological long-term outcomes after trimodality therapy and radical cystectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2018, 36, 43–53.
  14. Ding, H.; Fan, N.; Ning, Z.; Ma, D. Trimodal Therapy vs. Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 564779.
  15. Sekino, Y.; Ishikawa, H.; Kimura, T.; Kojima, T.; Maruo, K.; Azuma, H.; Yoshida, K.; Kageyama, Y.; Ushijima, H.; Tsuzuki, T.; et al. Bladder preservation therapy in combination with atezolizumab and radiation therapy for invasive bladder cancer (BPT-ART)—A study protocol for an open-label, phase II, multicenter study. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 2021, 21, 100724.
  16. Satkunasivam, R.; Lim, K.; Teh, B.S.; Guzman, J.; Zhang, J.; Farach, A.; Chen, S.H.; Wallis, C.J.; Efstathiou, E.; Esnaola, N.F.; et al. A phase II clinical trial of neoadjuvant sasanlimab and stereotactic body radiation therapy as an in situ vaccine for cisplatin-ineligible MIBC: The RAD VACCINE MIBC trial. Future Oncol. 2022, 18, 2771–2781.
  17. Simsek, M.; Tekin, S.B.; Bilici, M. Immunological Agents Used in Cancer Treatment. Eurasian J. Med. 2019, 51, 90–94.
  18. Monteiro, F.S.M.; Soares, A.; Souza, V.C.; Sperandio, R.C.; Grande, E.; Santoni, M.; Fay, A.P.; Sasse, A.D. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) as Adjuvant Treatment for Localized High-Risk Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC). Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2022, 20, 391–398.
  19. Sharma, P.; Siefker-Radtke, A.; de Braud, F.; Basso, U.; Calvo, E.; Bono, P.; Morse, M.A.; Ascierto, P.A.; Lopez-Martin, J.; Brossart, P.; et al. Nivolumab Alone and With Ipilimumab in Previously Treated Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: CheckMate 032 Nivolumab 1 mg/kg Plus Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Expansion Cohort Results. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 1608–1616.
  20. De Velasco, G.; Je, Y.; Bosse, D.; Awad, M.M.; Ott, P.A.; Moreira, R.B.; Schutz, F.; Bellmunt, J.; Sonpavde, G.P.; Hodi, F.S.; et al. Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Key Immune-Related Adverse Events from CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancer Patients. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2017, 5, 312–318.
  21. Powles, T.; van der Heijden, M.S.; Castellano, D.; Galsky, M.D.; Loriot, Y.; Petrylak, D.P.; Ogawa, O.; Park, S.H.; Lee, J.L.; De Giorgi, U.; et al. Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): A randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1574–1588.
  22. Powles, T.; Csoszi, T.; Ozguroglu, M.; Matsubara, N.; Geczi, L.; Cheng, S.Y.; Fradet, Y.; Oudard, S.; Vulsteke, C.; Morales Barrera, R.; et al. Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 931–945.
  23. Yoshida, T.; Ohe, C.; Ito, K.; Takada, H.; Saito, R.; Kita, Y.; Sano, T.; Tsuta, K.; Kinoshita, H.; Kitamura, H.; et al. Clinical and molecular correlates of response to immune checkpoint blockade in urothelial carcinoma with liver metastasis. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2022, 71, 2815–2828.
  24. Barone, B.; Calogero, A.; Scafuri, L.; Ferro, M.; Lucarelli, G.; Di Zazzo, E.; Sicignano, E.; Falcone, A.; Romano, L.; De Luca, L.; et al. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as a Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Treatment of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2022, 14, 2545.
  25. Kandoth, C.; McLellan, M.D.; Vandin, F.; Ye, K.; Niu, B.; Lu, C.; Xie, M.; Zhang, Q.; McMichael, J.F.; Wyczalkowski, M.A.; et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature 2013, 502, 333–339.
  26. Stuhler, V.; Rausch, S.; Maas, J.M.; Stenzl, A.; Bedke, J. Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2021, 21, 1215–1226.
  27. Robertson, A.G.; Kim, J.; Al-Ahmadie, H.; Bellmunt, J.; Guo, G.; Cherniack, A.D.; Hinoue, T.; Laird, P.W.; Hoadley, K.A.; Akbani, R.; et al. Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Cell 2018, 174, 1033.
  28. Loriot, Y.; Necchi, A.; Park, S.H.; Garcia-Donas, J.; Huddart, R.; Burgess, E.; Fleming, M.; Rezazadeh, A.; Mellado, B.; Varlamov, S.; et al. Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 338–348.
  29. Pal, S.K.; Rosenberg, J.E.; Hoffman-Censits, J.H.; Berger, R.; Quinn, D.I.; Galsky, M.D.; Wolf, J.; Dittrich, C.; Keam, B.; Delord, J.P.; et al. Efficacy of BGJ398, a Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 1-3 Inhibitor, in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma with FGFR3 Alterations. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 812–821.
  30. Ungaro, A.; Tucci, M.; Audisio, A.; Di Prima, L.; Pisano, C.; Turco, F.; Delcuratolo, M.D.; Di Maio, M.; Scagliotti, G.V.; Buttigliero, C. Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Urothelial Carcinoma: A New Therapeutic Opportunity Moves from Bench to Bedside. Cells 2022, 11, 803.
  31. Bogen, J.P.; Grzeschik, J.; Jakobsen, J.; Bahre, A.; Hock, B.; Kolmar, H. Treating Bladder Cancer: Engineering of Current and Next Generation Antibody-, Fusion Protein-, mRNA-, Cell- and Viral-Based Therapeutics. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 672262.
  32. Peixoto, A.; Ferreira, D.; Azevedo, R.; Freitas, R.; Fernandes, E.; Relvas-Santos, M.; Gaiteiro, C.; Soares, J.; Cotton, S.; Teixeira, B.; et al. Glycoproteomics identifies HOMER3 as a potentially targetable biomarker triggered by hypoxia and glucose deprivation in bladder cancer. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 40, 191.
  33. Hasehira, K.; Furuta, T.; Shimomura, O.; Asada, M.; Oda, T.; Tateno, H. Quantitative structural analysis of glycans expressed within tumors derived from pancreatic cancer patient-derived xenograft mouse models. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021, 534, 310–316.
  34. Oinam, L.; Tateno, H. Glycan Profiling by Sequencing to Uncover Multicellular Communication: Launching Glycobiology in Single Cells and Microbiomes. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 919168.
  35. Nakajima, T.; Sano, K.; Mitsunaga, M.; Choyke, P.L.; Kobayashi, H. Real-time monitoring of in vivo acute necrotic cancer cell death induced by near infrared photoimmunotherapy using fluorescence lifetime imaging. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 4622–4628.
  36. Kuroda, Y.; Oda, T.; Shimomura, O.; Hashimoto, S.; Akashi, Y.; Miyazaki, Y.; Furuya, K.; Furuta, T.; Nakahashi, H.; Louphrasitthiphol, P.; et al. Lectin-based phototherapy targeting cell surface glycans for pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2022, 152, 1425–1437.
More
Information
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , ,
View Times: 396
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Mar 2023
1000/1000
Video Production Service