Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience

Abstract Objective To describe real‐world outcomes of patients with BCG failure undergoing bladder‐sparing treatments (BSTs) vs radical cystectomy in the UK. Patients and Methods A single institution audit was conducted at a tertiary bladder cancer referral service (UCLH, London, UK). Patients with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Elizabeth Day, Rachel Aquilina, Lazaros Tzelves, Ashwin Sridhar, Anthony Ta, John Kelly, Bernadett Szabados
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-05-01
Series:BJUI Compass
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70025
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850109307432992768
author Elizabeth Day
Rachel Aquilina
Lazaros Tzelves
Ashwin Sridhar
Anthony Ta
John Kelly
Bernadett Szabados
author_facet Elizabeth Day
Rachel Aquilina
Lazaros Tzelves
Ashwin Sridhar
Anthony Ta
John Kelly
Bernadett Szabados
author_sort Elizabeth Day
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objective To describe real‐world outcomes of patients with BCG failure undergoing bladder‐sparing treatments (BSTs) vs radical cystectomy in the UK. Patients and Methods A single institution audit was conducted at a tertiary bladder cancer referral service (UCLH, London, UK). Patients with BCG failure treated between January 2017 and September 2022 were included. BSTs included endoscopic surveillance, hyperthermic mitomycin and further BCG. The primary outcome was event free survival (EFS). Complete response (CR) rate and duration of response (DoR) were investigated in patients undergoing BST. The secondary outcomes were 3‐ and 5‐year cancer‐specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 112 patients were included: 30% (34/112), 32% (36/112) and 27% (30/112) had BCG unresponsive, exposed and intolerant disease and 11% (12/112) had progressed to muscle invasive disease (MIBC). In the BCG unresponsive and exposed groups, 79% (27/34) and 72% (26/36) underwent RC, with the remaining receiving BSTs. Comparing RC vs BST in BCG unresponsive and exposed groups combined, there was a significantly poorer EFS in the BST group (p < 0.001); 35.3% (6/17) patients transitioned to second‐line BST due to recurrence or intolerance and a further 50% (3/6) transitioned a third line BST. There was no significant difference in CSS or OS rates. In BCG intolerance, the EFS rate was 90% as three patients experienced high‐grade recurrence and underwent RC. There were no cancer‐related deaths. In MIBC group, 5/12 presented with metastatic disease and 3‐ and 5‐year CSS rates was 66% and 0%. Conclusion This data reports real‐world practice in a UK centre. BSTs in BCG unresponsive and exposed disease are supported as an alternative to RC providing the increased risk of recurrence is accepted. Additionally, consideration of formal guidance supporting BST is needed in BCG intolerance, which appears to have an excellent outcome in a cohort managed with endoscopic surveillance. Upstaging to MIBC remains a poor prognostic factor and is key to improving survival outcomes in BCG failure.
format Article
id doaj-art-8fb0fea926af41579bdbf3ffcaad7d4c
institution OA Journals
issn 2688-4526
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series BJUI Compass
spelling doaj-art-8fb0fea926af41579bdbf3ffcaad7d4c2025-08-20T02:38:06ZengWileyBJUI Compass2688-45262025-05-0165n/an/a10.1002/bco2.70025Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experienceElizabeth Day0Rachel Aquilina1Lazaros Tzelves2Ashwin Sridhar3Anthony Ta4John Kelly5Bernadett Szabados6Department of Urology University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UKSchool of Medicine University College London London UK2nd Department of Urology Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens GreeceDepartment of Urology University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UKDepartment of Urology St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne AustraliaDepartment of Urology University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UKDepartment of Urology University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UKAbstract Objective To describe real‐world outcomes of patients with BCG failure undergoing bladder‐sparing treatments (BSTs) vs radical cystectomy in the UK. Patients and Methods A single institution audit was conducted at a tertiary bladder cancer referral service (UCLH, London, UK). Patients with BCG failure treated between January 2017 and September 2022 were included. BSTs included endoscopic surveillance, hyperthermic mitomycin and further BCG. The primary outcome was event free survival (EFS). Complete response (CR) rate and duration of response (DoR) were investigated in patients undergoing BST. The secondary outcomes were 3‐ and 5‐year cancer‐specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 112 patients were included: 30% (34/112), 32% (36/112) and 27% (30/112) had BCG unresponsive, exposed and intolerant disease and 11% (12/112) had progressed to muscle invasive disease (MIBC). In the BCG unresponsive and exposed groups, 79% (27/34) and 72% (26/36) underwent RC, with the remaining receiving BSTs. Comparing RC vs BST in BCG unresponsive and exposed groups combined, there was a significantly poorer EFS in the BST group (p < 0.001); 35.3% (6/17) patients transitioned to second‐line BST due to recurrence or intolerance and a further 50% (3/6) transitioned a third line BST. There was no significant difference in CSS or OS rates. In BCG intolerance, the EFS rate was 90% as three patients experienced high‐grade recurrence and underwent RC. There were no cancer‐related deaths. In MIBC group, 5/12 presented with metastatic disease and 3‐ and 5‐year CSS rates was 66% and 0%. Conclusion This data reports real‐world practice in a UK centre. BSTs in BCG unresponsive and exposed disease are supported as an alternative to RC providing the increased risk of recurrence is accepted. Additionally, consideration of formal guidance supporting BST is needed in BCG intolerance, which appears to have an excellent outcome in a cohort managed with endoscopic surveillance. Upstaging to MIBC remains a poor prognostic factor and is key to improving survival outcomes in BCG failure.https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70025BCG failurebladder cancerbladder sparing treatmentHyperthermic Mitomycinradical cystectomy
spellingShingle Elizabeth Day
Rachel Aquilina
Lazaros Tzelves
Ashwin Sridhar
Anthony Ta
John Kelly
Bernadett Szabados
Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
BJUI Compass
BCG failure
bladder cancer
bladder sparing treatment
Hyperthermic Mitomycin
radical cystectomy
title Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
title_full Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
title_fullStr Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
title_short Outcomes in BCG failure: Outcome from a single centre UK experience
title_sort outcomes in bcg failure outcome from a single centre uk experience
topic BCG failure
bladder cancer
bladder sparing treatment
Hyperthermic Mitomycin
radical cystectomy
url https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70025
work_keys_str_mv AT elizabethday outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT rachelaquilina outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT lazarostzelves outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT ashwinsridhar outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT anthonyta outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT johnkelly outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience
AT bernadettszabados outcomesinbcgfailureoutcomefromasinglecentreukexperience