Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer in 2023: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors

CONTEXT Bladder cancer (BC) is common worldwide and poses a significant public health challenge. External risk factors and the wider exposome (totality of exposure from external and internal factors) contribute significantly to the development of BC. Therefore, establishing a clear understanding of these risk factors is the key to prevention. OBJECTIVE To perform an up-to-date systematic review of BC's epidemiology and external risk factors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Two reviewers (I.J. and S.O.) performed a systematic review using PubMed and Embase in January 2022 and updated it in September 2022. The search was restricted to 4 yr since our previous review in 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Our search identified 5177 articles and a total of 349 full-text manuscripts. GLOBOCAN data from 2020 revealed an incidence of 573 000 new BC cases and 213 000 deaths worldwide in 2020. The 5-yr prevalence worldwide in 2020 was 1 721 000. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposures (aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are the most substantial risk factors. In addition, correlative evidence exists for several risk factors, including specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-environment risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS We present a contemporary overview of the epidemiology of BC and the current evidence for BC risk factors. Smoking and specific occupational exposures are the most established risk factors. There is emerging evidence for specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-external risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy. Further high-quality evidence is required to confirm initial findings and further understand cancer prevention. PATIENT SUMMARY Bladder cancer is common, and the most substantial risk factors are smoking and workplace exposure to suspected carcinogens. On-going research to identify avoidable risk factors could reduce the number of people who get bladder cancer

Hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy with mitomycin‐C for the treatment of high‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer patients

Abstract Objectives The objectives of the study are to explore tolerability, acceptability and oncological outcomes for patients with high‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) and mitomycin‐C (MMC) at our institution. Patients and Methods Our single‐institution, observational study consists of consecutive high‐risk NMIBC patients treated with HIVEC and MMC. Our HIVEC protocol included six weekly instillations (induction), followed by two further cycles of three instillations (maintenance) (6 + 3 + 3) if there was cystoscopic response. Patient demographics, instillation dates and adverse events (AEs) were collected prospectively in our dedicated HIVEC clinic. Retrospective case‐note review was performed to evaluate oncological outcomes. Primary outcomes were tolerability and acceptability of HIVEC protocol; secondary outcomes were 12‐month recurrence‐free, progression‐free and overall survival. Results In total, 57 patients (median age 80.3 years) received HIVEC and MMC, with a median follow‐up of 18 months. Of these, 40 (70.2%) had recurrent tumours, and 29 (50.9%) had received prior Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG). HIVEC induction was completed by 47 (82.5%) patients, but only 19 (33.3%) completed the full protocol. Disease recurrence (28.9%) and AEs (28.9%) were the most common reasons for incompletion of protocol; five (13.2%) patients stopped treatment due to logistical challenges. AEs occurred in 20 (35.1%) patients; the most frequently documented were rash (10.5%), urinary tract infection (8.8%) and bladder spasm (8.8%). Progression during treatment occurred in 11 (19.3%) patients, 4 (7.0%) of whom had muscle invasion and 5 (8.8%) subsequently required radical treatment. Patients who had received prior BCG were significantly more likely to progress (p = 0.04). 12‐month recurrence‐free, progression‐free and overall survival rates were 67.5%, 82.2%, and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusions Our single‐institution experience suggests that HIVEC and MMC are tolerable and acceptable. Oncological outcomes in this predominantly elderly, pretreated cohort are promising; however, disease progression was higher in patients pretreated with BCG. Further randomised noninferiority trials comparing HIVEC versus BCG in high‐risk NMIBC are required

Digital Tracking of Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Daily Step Counts Before and After Surgery Within the iROC Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve recovery after radical cystectomy (RC) are needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate wrist-worn wearable activity trackers in RC participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational cohort study was conducted within the iROC randomised trial. INTERVENTION: Patients undergoing RC at nine cancer centres wore wrist-based trackers for 7 days (d) at intervals before and after surgery. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Step counts were compared with participant and operative features, and recovery outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 308 participants, 284 (92.2%) returned digital activity data at baseline (median 17 d [interquartile range: 8-32] before RC), and postoperatively (5 [5-6] d) and at weeks 5 (43 [38-43] d), 12 (94 [87-106] d), and 26 (192 [181-205] d) after RC. Compliance was affected by the time from surgery and a coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic lockdown (return rates fell to 0-7%, chi-square p < 0.001). Step counts dropped after surgery (mean of 28% of baseline), before recovering at 5 weeks (wk) (71% of baseline) and 12 wk (95% of baseline; all analysis of variance [ANOVA] p < 0.001). Baseline step counts were not associated with postoperative recovery or death. Patients with extended hospital stays had reduced postoperative step counts, with a difference of 2.2 d (95% confidence interval: 0.856-3.482 d) between the lowest third and highest two-third tertiles (linear regression analysis; p < 0.001). Additionally, they spent less time out of the hospital within 90 d of RC (80.3 vs 74.3 d, p = 0.013). Lower step counts at 5, 12, and 26 wk were seen in those seeking medical help and needing readmission (ANOVA p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline step counts were not associated with recovery. Lower postoperative step counts were associated with longer length of stay at the hospital and postdischarge readmissions. Studies are required to determine whether low step counts can identify patients at a risk of developing complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: Postoperative step counts appear to be a promising tool to identify patients in the community needing medical help or readmission. More work is needed to understand which measures are most useful and how best to collect these