Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on outcomes of bladder-preserving chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Y Yeon Joo Kim (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea) C Chang Gon Kim (Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea) Y Youngju Song Y Young Seok Kim J Jae Lyun Lee I Inkeun Park (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea) B Bumjin Lim I Ik Jae Lee W Woong Sub Koom (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea) J Jaeho Cho (Department of Chemistry) S Sang Joon Shin (Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, Seoul, South Korea) W Won Sik Ham (Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea) W Won Sik Jang (Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea) J Ji Eun Heo J Joo-Hwan Park C Chan Woo Wee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Heavy Ion Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea) H Hyunju Kim

Abstract

670 Background: NAC (neoadjuvant chemotherapy) has been established as the standard of care for patients with MIBC (muscle-invasive bladder cancer) undergoing radical cystectomy. However, its potential benefit prior to CCRT (concurrent chemoradiotherapy) remains largely unexplored. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 226 patients with clinical stage T2–4N0–1M0 MIBC treated at three university centers between January 2012 and December 2024. Among them, 170 received upfront CCRT, and 56 received NAC followed by CCRT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and cystectomy-free survival (CFS). Results: Patients who received NAC were younger (mean age, 68 vs. 75 years; p < 0.001) and more likely to have N1 disease (16.1% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.005) compared with those treated with upfront CCRT. During a median follow-up of 83.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.0–101.4 months), 73 deaths were observed. CFS did not differ according to the receipt of NAC (p = 0.415). However, NAC was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.318; 95% CI, 0.163–0.620; p < 0.001), PFS (HR, 0.663; 95% CI, 0.442–0.994; p = 0.047), and MFS (HR, 0.444; 95% CI, 0.226–0.870; p = 0.018). After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) including age, sex, ECOG performance status, histology, clinical T and N stage, tumor multiplicity, presence of carcinoma in situ, hydronephrosis, maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) status, and radiation field, the survival benefit of NAC remained consistent for OS (HR, 0.272; 95% CI, 0.125–0.594; p = 0.001), PFS (HR, 0.543; 95% CI, 0.349–0.843; p = 0.007), and MFS (HR, 0.443; 95% CI, 0.224–0.877; p = 0.020). Conclusions: This multi-institutional study provides evidence that NAC before CCRT is associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with MIBC undergoing bladder-preserving treatment with curative intent.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 670-670
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

Y

Yeon Joo Kim

Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

C

Chang Gon Kim

Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

Y

Youngju Song

Y

Young Seok Kim

J

Jae Lyun Lee

I

Inkeun Park

Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

B

Bumjin Lim

I

Ik Jae Lee

W

Woong Sub Koom

Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

J

Jaeho Cho

Department of Chemistry

S

Sang Joon Shin

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, Seoul, South Korea

W

Won Sik Ham

Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

W

Won Sik Jang

Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

J

Ji Eun Heo

J

Joo-Hwan Park

C

Chan Woo Wee

Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Heavy Ion Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

H

Hyunju Kim