Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolving Concepts in the Evaluation and Management of Bladder Cancer in Elderly Men

  • Geriatric Urology (T Griebling, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Geriatrics Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this article, the contemporary knowledge regarding specific issues related to the care of older bladder cancer patients is reviewed. The status of radical cystectomy, bladder-sparing strategies, checkpoint inhibition, prostate-sparing surgery, and BCG distribution pertaining to older adults are discussed.

Recent Findings

The use of minimally invasive approaches for radical cystectomy in patients with invasive bladder cancer is on the rise, including those patients with advanced age. Enhanced recovery pathways are improving time-to-recovery for patients undergoing radical cystectomy which may be especially important in the elderly and frail. Trimodal bladder-sparing strategies are emerging options for patients who are unfit for radical cystectomy. Immunotherapies offer promising options for patients with advanced or treatment-refractory disease. Prostate-sparing surgery does not currently hold a place in the contemporary management of bladder cancer for those patients who are surgical candidates. Older adults may be at risk of disparity in the distribution of scarce BCG resources during times of manufacturing shortage.

Summary

Older adults, as compared with those younger, face special challenges in their bladder cancer care. There is a clinical imperative that practitioners involved in the evaluation and management of older bladder cancer patients be knowledgeable of the unique issues that stand between them and cancer-free survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 3rd ed. 2017;67(1):7–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. • Erlich A, Zlotta AR. Treatment of bladder cancer in the elderly. Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57(Suppl 1):S26–10 An excellent comprehensive review of the numerous issues that elderly patients with bladder cancer face.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Soria F, Moschini M, Korn S, Shariat SF. How to optimally manage elderly bladder cancer patients? Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5(5):683–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fung C, Guancial E, Roussel B, Bergsma D, Bylund K, Sahasrabudhe D, et al. Bladder cancer in the elderly patient: challenges and solutions. Clin Interv Aging 2015;61:939–11. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S743322

  5. Galsky MD. How I treat bladder cancer in elderly patients. J Geriatr Oncol. 2015;6(1):1–7 Dr. Galsky is a thought-leading medical oncologist specializing in bladder cancer whose recommendations for contemporary management of bladder cancer in the elderly are very useful.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rose TL, Milowsky MI. Management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the elderly. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(5):459–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rink M, Dahlem R, Kluth L, Minner S, Ahyai SA, Eichelberg C, et al. Older patients suffer from adverse histopathological features after radical cystectomy. Int J Urol John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (101111). 2011;18(8):576–84.

    Google Scholar 

  8. May M, Fritsche H-M, Gilfrich C, Brookman-May S, Burger M, Otto W, et al. Influence of older age on survival after radical cystectomy due to urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: survival analysis of a German multi-centre study after curative treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Urologe A. 2011;50(7):821–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nielsen ME, Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Lotan Y, Rogers CG, Amiel GE, et al. Advanced age is associated with poorer bladder cancer-specific survival in patients treated with radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):699–706 discussion706–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Noon AP, Albertsen PC, Thomas F, Rosario DJ, Catto JWF. Competing mortality in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer: evidence of undertreatment in the elderly and female patients. Br J Cancer Nature Publishing Group. 2013;108(7):1534–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gore JL, Litwin MS, Lai J, Yano EM, Madison R, Setodji C, et al. Use of radical cystectomy for patients with invasive bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(11):802–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chamie K, Hu B, de Vere White RW, Ellison LM. Cystectomy in the elderly: does the survival benefit in younger patients translate to the octogenarians? BJU Int John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (101111). 2008;102(3):284–90.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fedeli U, Fedewa SA, Ward EM. Treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer: evidence from the National Cancer Database, 2003 to 2007. J Urol Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA. 2011;185(1):72–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Horovitz D, Turker P, Bostrom PJ, Mirtti T, Nurmi M, Kuk C, et al. Does patient age affect survival after radical cystectomy? BJU Int John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (101111). 2012;110(11 Pt B):E486–93.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Siddiqui KM, Izawa JI. Ileal conduit: standard urinary diversion for elderly patients undergoing radical cystectomy. World J Urol. 2016;34(1):19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Froehner M, Brausi MA, Herr HW, Muto G, Studer UE. Complications following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in the elderly. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):443–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. • Daneshmand S, Ahmadi H, Schuckman AK, Mitra AP, Cai J, Miranda G, et al. Enhanced recovery protocol after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2014;192(1):50–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. • Schiffmann J, Gandaglia G, Larcher A, Sun M, Tian Z, Shariat SF, et al. Contemporary 90-day mortality rates after radical cystectomy in the elderly. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(12):1738–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shariat SF, Milowsky M, Droller MJ. Bladder cancer in the elderly. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(6):653–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, Zhou L, Kmiecik TE, Ko CY, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(5):833–42.e1 3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. • Hurria A, Cirrincione CT, Muss HB, Kornblith AB, Barry W, Artz AS, et al. Implementing a geriatric assessment in cooperative group clinical cancer trials: CALGB 360401. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(10):1290–6 Resource for practitioners seeking to learn more about the Comprehensive Geratric Assessment tool.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Isbarn H, Jeldres C, Zini L, Perrotte P, Baillargeon-Gagne S, Capitanio U, et al. A population based assessment of perioperative mortality after cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia, PA. 2009;182(1):70–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Feng MA, McMillan DT, Crowell K, Muss H, Nielsen ME, Smith AB. Geriatric assessment in surgical oncology: a systematic review. J Surg Res. 2015;193(1):265–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stroumbakis N, Herr HW, Cookson MS, Fair WR. Radical cystectomy in the octogenarian. J Urol. 1997;158(6):2113–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Clark PE, Stein JP, Groshen SG, Cai J, Miranda G, Lieskovsky G, et al. Radical cystectomy in the elderly: comparison of clincal outcomes between younger and older patients. Cancer. 2005;104(1):36–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang K, Li H, Xia D, Hu Z, Zhuang Q, Liu J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Gakis G, editor. PLoS One Public Library of Science. 2014;9(5):e95667.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bachman AG, Parker AA, Shaw MD, Cross BW, Stratton KL, Cookson MS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open approach for cystectomy: trends in the utilization and demographic or clinical predictors using the National Cancer Database. Urology. 2017;103:99–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP, Gonzalgo ML, Woods ME, Svatek RS, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2525–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen DP, Hussein Al Awamlh Al B, Charles Osterberg E, Chrystal J, Flynn T, Lee DJ, et al. Postoperative complications and short-term oncological outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33(9):1315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. •• Maloney I, Parker DC, Cookson MS, Patel S. Bladder cancer recovery pathways: a systematic review. Bladder Cancer IOS Press. 2017;3(4):269–81 A nice review of ERAS pathways for bladder cancer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen RC, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Zietman AL. Trimodality bladder preservation therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2013;11(8):952–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. El-Achkar A, Souhami L, Kassouf W. Bladder preservation therapy: review of literature and future directions of trimodal therapy. Curr Urol Rep Springer US. 2018;19(12):108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. •• Giacalone NJ, Shipley WU, Clayman RH, Niemierko A, Drumm M, Heney NM, et al. Long-term outcomes after bladder-preserving tri-modality therapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an updated analysis of the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Eur Urol. 2017;71(6):952–60 Oncologic outcomes from trimodal therapy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mak RH, Hunt D, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Tester WJ, Hagan MP, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer after selective bladder-preserving combined-modality therapy: a pooled analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocols 8802, 8903, 9506, 9706, 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(34):3801–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Turgeon G-A, Souhami L. Trimodality therapy for bladder preservation in the elderly population with invasive bladder cancer. Front Oncol Frontiers. 2014;4(4):206.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Babjuk M, Böhle A, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):447–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Power NE, Izawa J. Comparison of guidelines on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (EAU, CUA, AUA, NCCN, NICE). Bladder Cancer IOS Press. 2016;2(1):27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Oddens JR, Sylvester RJ, Brausi MA, Kirkels WJ, van de Beek C, van Andel G, et al. The effect of age on the efficacy of maintenance bacillus Calmette-Guérin relative to maintenance epirubicin in patients with stage Ta T1 urothelial bladder cancer: results from EORTC genito-urinary group study 30911. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):694–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gontero P, Sylvester R, Pisano F, Joniau S, Vander Eeckt K, Serretta V, et al. Prognostic factors and risk groups in T1G3 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients initially treated with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin: results of a retrospective multicenter study of 2451 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):74–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Herr HW. Age and outcome of superficial bladder cancer treated with bacille Calmette-Guérin therapy. Urology. 2007;70(1):65–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Davies BJ, Hwang TJ, Kesselheim AS. Ensuring access to injectable generic drugs - the case of intravesical BCG for bladder cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(15):1401–3 Exploring some of the distributive justice issues during BCG manufacturing shortages.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Modgil V, Cashman S, Gommersall L. The BCG shortage - what isn’t the fuss about? Trends Urol Men's Health. 2016;7(4):22–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bandari J, Maganty A, MacLeod LC, Davies BJ. Manufacturing and the market: rationalizing the shortage of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):481–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chism DD. Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and the rise of immunotherapy. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(10):1277–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hanna KS. A review of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the management of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Pharmacotherapy 26 ed. 2017;163(3):761–1405.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Singh P, Black P. Emerging role of checkpoint inhibition in localized bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(12):548–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Balar AV, Castellano D, O’Donnell PH, Grivas P, Vuky J, Powles T, et al. First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1483–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE, Powles T, Petrylak DP, Bellmunt J, et al. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):67–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lalani A-KA, Bossé D, McGregor BA, Choueiri TK. Immunotherapy in the elderly. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(4-5):403–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, Fradet Y, Lee J-L, Fong L, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med Massachusetts Medical Society. 2017;376(11):1015–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A, Baron A, Necchi A, Bedke J, et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):312–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sharma P, Callahan MK, Bono P, Kim J, Spiliopoulou P, Calvo E, et al. Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1590–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Powles T, O’Donnell PH, Massard C, Arkenau H-T, Friedlander TW, Hoimes CJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: updated results from a phase 1/2 open-label study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):e172411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Apolo AB, Infante JR, Balmanoukian A, Patel MR, Wang D, Kelly K, et al. Avelumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, in patients with refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results from a multicenter, phase Ib study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2117–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Balar AV, Necchi A, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10031):1909–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. • Stein JP, Hautmann RE, Penson D, Skinner DG. Prostate-sparing cystectomy: a review of the oncologic and functional outcomes. Contraindicated in patients with bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(5):466–72 Review of contemporary data surrounding prostate-sparing cystectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Revelo MP, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Shook MF, Smith JA, Shappell SB. Incidence and location of prostate and urothelial carcinoma in prostates from cystoprostatectomies: implications for possible apical sparing surgery. Journal of Urology. Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia. PA. 2004;171(2 Pt 1):646–51.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Dy GW, Gore JL, Forouzanfar MH, Naghavi M, Fitzmaurice C. Global burden of urologic cancers, 1990-2013. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):437–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Steers WD. Voiding dysfunction in the orthotopic neobladder. World J Urol. 2000;18(5):330–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hautmann RE, Stein JP. Neobladder with prostatic capsule and seminal-sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer: a step in the wrong direction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32(2):177–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Studer UE. Clinical indications and outcomes with nerve-sparing cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32(2):165–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Department of Urology

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center & The Stephenson Cancer Center, 920 Stanton L. Young Boulevard, Williams Pavilion, Suite 3150, Oklahoma City, OK, 73104, USA

    Daniel C. Parker, Sanjay G. Patel & Michael S. Cookson

Authors
  1. Daniel C. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay G. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael S. Cookson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Cookson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Cookson, Dr. Patel, and Dr. Parker each declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Geriatric Urology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parker, D.C., Patel, S.G. & Cookson, M.S. Evolving Concepts in the Evaluation and Management of Bladder Cancer in Elderly Men. Curr Geri Rep 8, 331–337 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00301-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00301-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation