Search

Radical cystectomy is the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer, but some patients have medically inoperable disease or refuse cystectomy to preserve their bladder function. Bladder preservation therapy with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor and concurrent chemoradiotherapy, known as trimodal treatment, is regarded to be a curative-intent alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer during the past decade. After the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, a world-changing breakthrough occurred in the field of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and many clinical trials have been conducted against non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Interestingly, preclinical and clinical studies against other malignancies have shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors interact with the radiation-induced immune reaction. As half of the patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer are elderly, and some have renal dysfunction, not only as comorbidity but also because of hydronephrosis caused by their tumors, immune checkpoint inhibitors are expected to become part of a new therapeutic approach for combination treatment with radiotherapy. Accordingly, clinical trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors have been initiated to preserve bladder for muscle invasive bladder cancer patients using radiation and immune checkpoint inhibitors with/without chemotherapy. The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence of trimodal therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer during the past decade and to discuss the future directions of bladder preservation therapy in immuno-oncology era.

Objective: To explore radiation oncologists’ attitudes and practice patterns of radiotherapy for hormone-naïve prostate cancer with bone metastases in Japan. Methods: An internet-based survey was distributed to board-certified radiation oncologists of the Japanese Society of Radiation Oncology. Three hypothetical cases were assumed: hormone-naïve prostate cancer with single, three or multiple non-symptomatic bone metastases. The respondents described their attitude regarding such cases, treatment methods and the radiotherapy dose fractionation that they would recommend. Results: Among the 1013 board-certified radiation oncologists in Japan, 373 (36.8%) responded to the questionnaire. Most of the respondents (85.0%) believed that radiotherapy may be applicable as a primary treatment for hormone-naïve prostate cancer with bone metastases in some circumstances. For Case 1 (single bone metastasis), 55.0% of the respondents recommended radiotherapy for the prostate and bone metastasis. For Case 2 (three bone metastases), only 24.4% recommended radiotherapy for all lesions, and 31.4% recommended radiotherapy for the prostate only. For Case 3 (multiple bone metastases), 49.1% of the respondents stated that there was no indication for radiotherapy. However, 34% of the respondents still preferred to administer radiotherapy for the prostate. The radiotherapy techniques and dose fractionations varied widely among the respondents.