Identifies early recurrence as a predictor of poor survival outcomes in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, suggesting the need for targeted therapy.
Background/Objectives: Early recurrence after complete initial transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TUR-BT) may indicate biologically aggressive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). This study aimed to identify clinicopathological predictors of ER and its independent impact on progression and survival outcomes. Methods: Clinical data of 335 primary NMIBC patients who underwent TUR-BT between 2012 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with non-primary tumors, incomplete resection, or follow-up <6 months were excluded from the study. Patients were categorized into recurrence-free, early recurrence, and late recurrence groups. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of early recurrence. Progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression. A 36-month landmark analysis was conducted to adjust for heterogeneity in follow-up duration. Results: Early recurrence occurred in 118 patients (35.2%). Independent predictors of early recurrence were tumor size (OR = 1.012, p = 0.038), T1 stage (OR = 2.57, p = 0.004), high-grade pathology (OR = 1.933, p = 0.030), and absence of single-dose intravesical chemotherapy (IVC) (OR = 3.642, p = 0.025). Additionally, adjuvant IVC (OR = 0.279, p = 0.015) and intravesical BCG (OR = 0.427, p = 0.006) independently reduced the risk of early recurrence. Early recurrence independently predicted worse PFS (HR = 6.053), CSS (HR = 2.052), and OS (HR = 1.961) (all p < 0.001). The landmark analysis confirmed these results (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Early recurrence after initial and complete TUR-BT is an independent predictor of adverse oncological outcomes. Identifying high-risk patients and applying early intravesical therapy may improve outcomes by preventing early recurrence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydın et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: