Mednet Logo

In light of recent updates on neoadjuvant enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for muscle-invasive bladder cancer showing benefit, how should a trimodality bladder-preservation strategy be contextualized?

Do patients who are otherwise suitable for bladder preservation risk forfeiting access to highly effective preoperative systemic therapy, and does a bladder-sparing approach remain a reasonable option in an era of more effective neoadjuvant treatment with EV/pembrolizumab?
3 Answers
Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Medical Oncology · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Answered on

The treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. has evolved quickly. Neoadjuvant EVP is absolutely the standard of care in all patients who can receive it. The clinical trials (EV-303/304) used cystectomy as the bladder-directed therapy, and this is the standard of care. Having said that, many pati...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Cancer Care Centers of Brevard
Answered on

What are most doing these days in pts getting padcev with keytruda prior to planned radical cystectomy who then end up refusing surgery and the cysto is otherwise negative for malignancy? Consolidate with XRT? Surveillance?


Interesting read


https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/aua-2026/a...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Medical Oncology · Mary Lanning Healthcare Morrison Cancer Center/University of Nebraska Medical Center Adjunct Faculty
Answered on

Perioperative EV–pembrolizumab + radical cystectomy, is now the most effective cystectomy-based strategy irrespective of cisplatin eligibility, whereas bladder preservation with trimodality (TMT) approach offers retaining the native bladder at the cost of the validated EV–pembrolizumab benefit. (Mat...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer