| Resum: |
Bladder cancer is a common disease, especially in older adults. Most cases are found early, when the cancer is limited to the inner layer of the bladder. The standard treatment involves transurethral resection of the tumor. While this method is effective, it can lead to repeated procedures, discomfort, and high medical costs. As a result, doctors and researchers are exploring a different approach called active surveillance. This means carefully monitoring patients with low-risk tumors through regular check-ups, rather than operating right away. In this study, we reviewed the results of several previous studies to understand how safe and effective active surveillance is for patients with early-stage bladder cancer. We found that for carefully chosen patients, active surveillance can be a safe and practical option. Most people under observation did not experience serious tumor growth or spread, and many were able to avoid surgery. However, there is still no agreement on the best way to decide who should be monitored or how often check-ups should occur. More research is needed to create clear rules. Using active surveillance could reduce medical risks and improve quality of life for some people with bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer globally, with most cases classified as non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). While transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) remains the gold-standard treatment, its complications, high recurrence rates, and economic burden have prompted interest in alternative strategies like active surveillance (AS) for low-grade and low-grade NMBIC recurrences. AS minimizes surgical interventions and patient burden, but lacks standardized protocols for inclusion criteria and follow-up schedules. Most studies suggest intensive monitoring during the first year, with criteria often based on tumor size, number, and grade. Acquisition of evidence: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in December 2024 using Pubmed, Cochrane, and Trip databases to identify studies on AS for low-grade NMBIC recurrences. Only English studies were included, with Boolean operators used to refine the search. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) selection criteria were followed. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to analyze the quality of the included studies. Evidence synthesis: This systematic review included 11 studies evaluating AS for NMIBC. Early studies, such demonstrated AS as a feasible alternative to TURBT, with low progression rates. Subsequent research confirmed its safety in selected patients, with tumor growth and positive cytology being the main reasons for intervention. More recent investigations, further supported AS as a viable strategy, highlighting the low risk of stage and grade progression and its potential to reduce surgical interventions. Conclusions: AS may be considered an alternative approach for low-risk NMIBC recurrences. However, there is need for prospective studies and personalized approaches to optimize AS, addressing follow-up strategies, inclusion criteria and progression thresholds. |
visitant ::
identificació
(Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament de Cirurgia)
