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?
2 Answers
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
Radiation Oncology · Cancer Care Centers of Brevard
Answered on
What are most doing these days in patients receiving Padcev with Keytruda prior to planned radical cystectomy who then end up refusing surgery and whose cystoscopy is otherwise negative for malignancy? Consolidate with XRT? Surveillance?
Interesting read:
Join for free or sign in to see the full answer