Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Many studies have stressed the necessity of repeat transurethral resection (reTURB) following the initial conventional transurethral resection of the bladder for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients. However, there have been few studies focusing on the role of reTURB after en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) for NMIBC by far. This study aimed to evaluate whether reTURB can be avoided after ERBT.

Materials and methods:

We conducted research in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 14, 2024, to identify studies on the reTURB after initial ERBT. For data conversion and the combined calculation of the incidence rate, we utilized R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and Cochrane Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) along with the double arcsine method. This systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number 1082989.

Results:

A total of 17 studies involving 1051 participants were included. The rates of residual tumor and tumor upstaging detected by reTURB or cystoscopy after ERBT were 9% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4%–16%) and 0% (95% CI = 0%–1%). No statistically significant positive effect of reTURB after initial ERBT was exhibited in recurrence-free survival (RFS), tumor recurrence, and progression. The pooled hazard ratios of 1-year and 5-year RFS were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.41–1.44, p = 0.41) and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.58–1.20, p = 0.33). The pooled odds ratio of progression and recurrence were 1.13 (95% CI = 0.53–2.41, p = 0.75) and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.53–1.16, p = 0.23).

Conclusion:

ERBT can successfully regulate the rate of tumor upstaging and residual tumor to an acceptable level. For patients with NMIBC, subsequent reTURB may not be required following the initial ERBT.

Plain language summary

Systematic review of reTURB after ERBT

This article aimed to evaluate whether repeat transurethral resection (reTURB) can be avoided after En bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) and found that reTURB may not be required following the initial ERBT in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Keywords

en bloc resection non-muscle invasive bladder cancer repeat transurethral resection systematic review

Introduction

Bladder cancer (BC) ranks among the 10 most prevalent cancer types globally, with an annual incidence of approximately 550,000 new cases.^1,2 In the European Union, the age-standardized incidence rate per 100,000 individuals is 20 for men and 4.6 for women.³ Epidemiological projections⁴ suggest a rising trend in BC incidence over the coming decades. Smoking ranks as the most important risk factor for BC.^5,6 Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most frequent BC, accounting for approximately 75% of all BC cases.⁷

Numerous factors^8–15 influence the development and prognosis of BC, among which the selection of surgical approaches plays a pivotal role. The gold standard for treating NMIBC is a combination of conventional transurethral resection of the bladder (cTURB) and subsequent postoperative intravesical instillation therapy.¹⁶ However, numerous disadvantages are inherent to cTURB, including the dissemination of tumor cells via fragmentation, the peril of tumor cell seeding and reimplantation, the induction of thermal injury to delicate tissues within the resected specimens, and the potential for incomplete tumor resection.^17,18

To address the limitations associated with cTURB, clinical practice has adopted the techniques of en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT). Currently, many studies have compared the prognosis of ERBT with cTURB. For patients with BC(s) of ⩽3 cm, ERBT is an evolving alternative to cTURB, with a number of essential advantages such as a higher muscle detection rate, better quality of pathology specimen, a lower complication rate, and a higher recurrence-free survival (RFS).¹⁹ In terms of muscle layer detection rates and recurrence risks, some research reported that cTURB demonstrates non-inferiority compared to ERBT,²⁰ while others reported ERBT’s significant advantage over cTURB.²¹

Repeated transurethral resection of bladder (reTURB) can further eliminate residual tumorous tissues, detect understaging BC, and augment the responsiveness to Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine instillation.^22–24 To reduce recurrence or progression to MIBC, NCCN guidelines recommend reTURB for cases with the following characteristics: high-grade Ta BC, T1 BC, visually incomplete resection, or high-volume tumor at initial cTURB.²⁵ However, reTURB significantly increases the complication risk and financial stress,²⁶ which underscores the necessity for a rigorous and thorough evaluation prior to the implementation of reTURB. At present, many studies have focused on the necessity of reTURB after initial cTURB. Although given the ERBT’s advantages over cTURB, it is still unclear whether reTURB should be performed after initial ERBT. It is under debate whether reTURB can improve the prognosis after initial ERBT and whether it is feasible to diminish the necessity for a reTURB in NMIBC patients after initial ERBT.

To answer these questions, we conducted this meta-analysis to both demonstrate the potent curative potential of ERBT and evaluate the role of reTURB after initial ERBT. Based on this study, we intended to provide research support for the selection of surgical options for patients with NMIBC.

Methods

Literature search and study selection

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.²⁷

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 14, 2024. The search terms included the following: “ERBT,” “En bloc,” “enbloc,” “enucleate,” “one piece,” “reTURBT,” “re-transurethral,” “second,” “repeat,” “restage,” “reTURB,” “re-look,” “re-resect,” “bladder cancer,” “bladder tumor,” “bladder carcinoma,” and “urothelial carcinoma.” In addition, the references of the selected manuscripts were reviewed to identify any further relevant studies.

Initial screening of titles and abstracts was performed independently by two investigators to identify eligible studies. Disagreements between the investigators were resolved through consensus with the involvement of a third-party coauthor.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with NMIBC who have undergone initial ERBT; (2) patients having received reTURB after ERBT; (3) outcome indicators, including at least one of the following: tumor residual rate, tumor upstaging rate, tumor recurrence rate, tumor progression rate, and RFS.

Exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patent records, reviews, conference abstracts, editorials, animal studies, case reports, and letters; (2) data incomplete or invalid.

Regardless of the pathological classification of the tumor, we included all patient records that met the aforementioned criteria for meta-analysis.

Data extraction

Two researchers independently extracted and verified study characteristics and clinical outcomes. Data were extracted regarding the first author, year, country, number of patients, study period, ERBT method, re-resection time, tumor stage, tumor residual rate, tumor upstaging rate, RFS, tumor recurrence rate, and tumor progression rate.

Quality and risk of bias assessment

We assessed the quality of literature using a Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS).²⁸ The first eight items of MINORS were specially used for quality assessment of noncomparative studies, with 16 points. The remaining four items applied to comparative studies, contributing an additional 8 points. A score greater than or equal to 12 points was considered moderate to high literature quality.

For outcome indicators from more than 10 studies, publication bias was evaluated using both the Egger linear regression approach and funnel plots.²⁹

Sample size calculation and trial sequential analysis

The trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted utilizing TSA software (version 0.9.5.10) developed by the Copenhagen Clinical Trials Centre, Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark. The analysis parameters included an anticipated 20% odds ratio (OR) reduction, with α (Type I error) = 0.05 and β (Type II error) = 0.20 to determine the required information size (RIS).³⁰ Statistical significance was established when cumulative Z-curves crossed predefined RIS thresholds, simultaneously confirming adequate sample size attainment for conclusive evidence interpretation.

Data processing and statistical analysis

Dichotomous variables were presented as counts and percentages. The impact of reTURB on survival was assessed using the hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect size. They were extracted directly from each study if reported by the authors. Otherwise, these data were estimated indirectly using the method described by Tierney et al.³¹ We conducted a single-arm meta-analysis for non-comparative studies and a double-arm meta-analysis for comparative studies. All statistical analyses in this study were performed using R software (version 4.1) and Cochrane Review Manager 5.4, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. In a meta-analysis of prevalence, if the event incidence was greater than 0.8 or less than 0.2, the double arcsine method was employed.³² Inconsistencies (I²) statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Depending on the degree of heterogeneity, we selected either a random effects model (when I² > 50%) or a fixed effects model (when I² ⩽ 50%).

Valid subgroup analyses require fulfillment of two prerequisite conditions: (1) availability of comparable outcome metrics for each subgroup stratum; (2) utilization of standardized subgroup classification criteria across at least two independent studies. These pre-specified conditions were unmet in the current evidence base, which limited the feasibility of subgroup analyses.

Results

Basic characteristics and quality assessment

Figure 1 shows the process of literature search and study selection. A total of 235 records were identified through database and register searches. We removed 108 duplicates and got 127 studies for screening. After carefully screening 127 articles, 17 studies^33–49 were included, of which 8 were prospective and 9 were retrospective.

Figure 1.

Literature search and selection.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 17 eligible studies, totaling 1051 cases (ERBT + reTURB: 757; ERBT: 294), published from 2011 to 2024. These studies were conducted across various countries, including Austria (1), China (6), Egypt (1), France (1), Germany (1), Italy (4), Japan (2), and Poland (1). Despite including a control group in five studies,^{43–45,48,49} only four of them are available for double-arm meta-analysis due to the lack of available data from one⁴³ of the control groups, while the remaining single-arm studies can only be utilized for single-arm meta-analysis. In the studies included, thulium laser and electrotomy emerged as the most prevalent methods utilized for ERBT, with the majority of reTURB procedures being conducted within a 6-week timeframe.

Table 1.

Literature basic information.

First author	Year	Country	Study type	Study period	No. patients	No. patients	Stage (Ta/T1/Tis)		ERBT method	Re-resection time
First author	Year	Country	Study type	Study period	(ERBT + reTURB)	(ERBT)	(ERBT + reTURB)	(ERBT)	ERBT method	Re-resection time
Andrea³³	2023	Austria	Prospective study	January 2019–January 2022	24	0	NA	NA	Electrotomy	NA
Fan³⁴	2022	China	Retrospective study	2013–2019	27	0	NA	NA	KTP laser	Within 6 weeks
Hashem³⁵	2021	Egypt	Prospective study	September 2015–September 2018	44	0	2/42/0	NA	Holmium laser	4 weeks
Hu³⁶	2021	China	Retrospective study	January 2019–October 2019	10	0	NA	NA	Holmium laser	4–6 weeks
Hurle³⁷	2020	Italy	Retrospective study	September 2011–April 2017	78	0	17/57/4	NA	Thulium laser/Electrotomy	40 days
Levy³⁸	2024	France	Retrospective study	January 2014–June 2022	75	0	NA	NA	NA	NA
Migliari³⁹	2015	Italy	Prospective study	February 2012–September 2013	53	0	30/23/0	NA	Thulium Laser	90 days
Muto⁴⁰	2014	Italy	Prospective study	April 2011–September 2012	49	0	31/18/0	NA	Thulium laser	30–90 days
Poletajew⁴¹	2021	Poland	Prospective study	NA	37	0	NA	NA	Electrotomy	2–6 weeks
Soria⁴²	2020	Italy	Prospective study	2012–2017	42	0	NA	NA	Electrotomy	36–61 days
Wolters⁴³	2011	Germany	Prospective study	June 2010–October 2010	5	1	2/3/0	1/0/0	Thulium laser	6 weeks
Xu⁴⁴	2021	China	Retrospective study	June 2015–June 2019	51	64	16/35/0	15/49/0	RevoLix 2-μm laser	Within 6 weeks
Yanagisawa⁴⁵	2022	Japan	Retrospective study	April 2013–February 2021	50	56	0/50/0	0/56/0	Electrotomy	Within 2–6 weeks
Yanagisawa⁴⁶	2023	Japan	Retrospective study	January 2012–February 2022	46	0	NA	NA	Electrotomy	4–6 weeks
Yang⁴⁷	2020	China	Prospective study	October 2015–June 2017	28	0	NA	NA	Electrotomy	2–6 weeks
Zhou⁴⁸	2020	China	Retrospective study	June 2012–June 2018	108	143	60/48/0	87/56/0	Thulium laser	2–6 weeks
Zhou⁴⁹	2023	China	Retrospective study	June 2018–July 2022	30	30	14/15/1	12/17/1	Thulium laser/Electrotomy	4–6 weeks

ERBT, en bloc resection of bladder tumor; reTURB, repeated transurethral resection of bladder.

Supplemental Table 1 presents the outcome of a quality assessment conducted using the MINORS. All of the studies included in the analysis scored 12 points or higher, reflecting the satisfactory quality of these studies.

Single-arm meta-analysis results

Residual tumors and upstage at reTURB/cystoscopy after ERBT

All 17 studies reported the status of residual tumor after ERBT. Given that the residual tumor rates reported in the included studies were consistently below 20%, we employed the double arcsine method for data conversion. Due to pronounced heterogeneity observed (I² = 83.2%), the meta-analysis results utilizing the random effects model showed that the residual tumor rate after ERBT was 9% (95% CI = 4%–16%; Figure 2(a)).

Figure 2.

Forest plots of tumor residual rate (a) and upstaging rate (b) detected by reTURB or cystoscopy after initial ERBT.

Thirteen studies disclosed the upstaging rate at reTURB or cystoscopy after ERBT, which ranged from 0% to 4%. Following normalization and adjustment of the data using the double arcsine transformation, the meta-analysis results using the fixed effects model showed that the tumor upstaging rate was 0% (95% CI = 0%–1%; Figure 2(b)).

Double-arm meta-analysis results

Recurrence-free survival

Four studies recorded RFS of NMIBC patients. The pooled HRs of 1-year and 5-year RFS were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.41–1.44, p = 0.41; Figure 3(a)) and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.58–1.20, p = 0.33; Figure 3(b)), indicating no statistically significant benefit for reTURB after ERBT in improving RFS.

Figure 3.

Forest plots of 1-year RFS (a) and 5-year RFS (b) between the ERBT + reTURB group and the ERBT group.

Progression and recurrence

The prognostic data concerning progression and recurrence rates during the follow-up period were reported in four studies. The pooled OR of progression and recurrence were 1.13 (95% CI = 0.53–2.41, p = 0.75; Figure 4(a)) and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.53–1.16, p = 0.23; Figure 4(b)), which suggested no statistically significant benefit for reTURB after ERBT in reducing progression and recurrence rate.

Figure 4.

Forest plots of progression rate (a) and recurrence rate (b) between the ERBT + reTURB group and the ERBT group.

Risk of bias assessment

Given the availability of data from over 10 studies on tumor residual rate and upstaging rate, Egger linear regression approach and funnel plots were employed for publication bias evaluation. As shown in Figure 5, the results indicated an absence of statistically significant publication bias in both the meta-analysis examining the tumor residual rate (p = 0.3596; Figure 5(a)) and the analysis assessing the upstaging rate (p = 0.4716; Figure 5(b)), which implied these pooling results were stable and reliable.

Figure 5.

Funnel plots and Egger’s test of tumor residual rate (a) and upstaging rate (b).

TSA results

We carried out a TSA to reduce the risk of type I error and to assess the RIS. Final results indicated that the sample size did not reach the RIS for the assessment of progression (Supplemental Figure 1). Therefore, more studies are required to perform the meta-analysis. But for recurrence, the sample size was adequate (Supplemental Figure 2).

Discussion

Since the Stern-McCarthy resectoscope became the foundation of cTURB, cTURB has remained as the cornerstone treatment of BC until now.¹⁶ However, cTURB’s oncological outcomes have been doubted. Piecemeal resection during cTURB may lead to seeding of normal urothelium by tumor cells,⁵⁰ which might lead to a higher recurrence rate and worse prognosis. Thus, ensuring complete resection of BC, ERBT can minimize the risk of tumor seeding by extracting the bladder tumor in one piece. According to the study conducted by Migliari et al.,⁵⁰ ERBT demonstrates a lower recurrence rate at the site of resection compared to cTURB. A meta-analysis⁵¹ also reported that ERBT had better or comparable perioperative outcomes.

However, there are still limitations in ERBT. The removal of large bladder tumors has always been a challenge in ERBT. Teoh and Mostafid et al.⁵² published their experiences on routine implementation of ERBT and reported that when stratified based on tumor size, the technical success rates of ERBT were 84.3% for BC of 3 cm or less and 29.6% for tumors exceeding 3 cm. However, according to Petov et al.⁵³ and Babaevskaya et al.,⁵⁴ ERBT may be feasible for tumors >3 cm, with operator experience possibly moderating technical challenges and explaining outcome variations. While expertise may overcome size limitations, further validation in larger lesions remains warranted.

According to the single-arm meta-analysis results of our research, the tumor upstaging rate and tumor residual rate at reTURB/cystoscopy after ERBT were low, especially the tumor upstaging rate, which was consistent with the studies conducted by Yanagisawa et al.⁴⁶ and Cumberbatch et al.⁵⁵ In a single-center retrospective study conducted by Zhou et al.,⁴⁸ the tumor residual rate was merely 5.6% (6/108) following the reTURB of 108 high-risk NMIBC patients who had undergone ERBT. On the contrary, a recent meta-analysis⁵⁶ reported the tumor residual rate of 31.4% in patients who have undergone reTURB following cTURB, compared with a markedly lower rate of 9% in patients who have undergone reTURB following ERBT in our study. While our single-arm meta-analysis precludes direct ERBT-cTURB comparisons, it demonstrates that ERBT achieves satisfactory control of tumor upstaging and residual tumors.

Double-arm meta-analysis results of our study further exhibited the superiority of ERBT. Our research has revealed that there was no statistically significant benefit observed for reTURB following ERBT in improving RFS, reducing progression and recurrence rate, which means it might be unnecessary for NMIBC patients to undergo reTURB after initial ERBT. In a prospective study, patients initially diagnosed with T1 NMIBC were randomly assigned to either a reTURB group or a non-reTURB group. The first-year RFS rate was 82% and the third-year rate was 65% in the reTURB group, compared to 57% and 37%, respectively, in the non-reTURB group. These findings suggest that re-resection can significantly enhance the RFS rates of patients.⁵⁷ However, the patients of this study had undergone cTURB instead of ERBT. According to the study of Calo et al.,⁵⁸ when the initial resection was thorough, subsequent re-resection did not result in any significant improvement in RFS or progression-free survival, which was consistent with our study. Although reTURB was reported to be significantly positive for NIMBC patients with T1, Tx, or high-grade BC found in the primary cTURB,⁵⁹ reTURB might not be necessary for patients having undergone ERBT. Given the trauma and economic burden associated with reTURB, for patients with poor physical conditions who find it challenging to tolerate further surgery, it may be prudent to consider avoiding reTURB when appropriate. As reTURB may be unnecessary following initial ERBT, subsequent ERBT could also be omitted within this treatment paradigm. According to European Association of Urology guidelines,¹⁶ reTURB can increase RFS, improve outcomes after primary cTURB. However, the guideline did not address the differential impact of surgical techniques on reTURB. Our data indicated that NMIBC patients undergoing ERBT derived limited measurable benefit from reTURB. These observations highlighted the need for prospective trials to clarify the clinical value of routine reTURB after ERBT. In the future, the integration of reTURB for NMIBC with novel immunotherapeutic strategies holds promise for precisely controlling tumor progression.⁶⁰ This approach may address the limitations of current surgical interventions by combining local tumor resection with systemic immune modulation, thereby optimizing personalized therapeutic regimens for NMIBC patients.

There are still limitations in our study. First, given that few studies comparing the prognosis of patients with ERBT + reTURB and ERBT, we only found four comparative studies for double-arm meta-analysis results, which might limit the universality of our findings. Second, single-arm studies inherently carry a risk of bias. To mitigate this effect, we employed the random model and assessed the risk of bias. Third, insufficient studies reported stratified outcomes for relevant patient subgroups, such as Ta or T1 stages. Consequently, we were unable to perform additional subgroup analyses to adjust for these effects. Lacking subgroup-specific data creates uncertainty in applying pooled results to individual patients. Finally, despite conducting a meta-analysis, the overall sample size remains inadequate. Therefore, future research necessitates more large-scale randomized controlled studies to further validate our findings.

Conclusion

ERBT can successfully regulate the rate of tumor upstaging and residual tumor to an acceptable level. For patients with NMIBC, particularly those facing poor physical health and financial constraints, subsequent reTURB may not be required following the initial ERBT. However, considering the inadequate sample size, further high-quality comparative trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tau-10.1177_17562872251367555 – Supplemental material for Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tau-10.1177_17562872251367555 for Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer by Jincong Li, Yuxuan Song, Rui Chen, Hanlin Gao, Yang Liu, Yun Peng, Jilin Wu, Shicong Lai, Yiqing Du, Caipeng Qin and Tao Xu in Therapeutic Advances in Urology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tau-10.1177_17562872251367555 – Supplemental material for Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tau-10.1177_17562872251367555 for Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer by Jincong Li, Yuxuan Song, Rui Chen, Hanlin Gao, Yang Liu, Yun Peng, Jilin Wu, Shicong Lai, Yiqing Du, Caipeng Qin and Tao Xu in Therapeutic Advances in Urology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Tao Xu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Richters

Aben

Kiemeney

The global burden of urinary bladder cancer: an update. World J Urol 2020; 38(8): 1895–1904.

Safiri

Kolahi

Naghavi

Global, regional and national burden of bladder cancer and its attributable risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6(11): e004128.

Alfred

Max

Carrión

, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2023 guidelines. Eur Urol 2024; 85(1): 17–31.

Feng

, et al. Global burden and cross-country inequalities in urinary tumors from 1990 to 2021 and predicted incidence changes to 2046. Mil Med Res 2025; 12(1): 12.

van Osch

Jochems

van Schooten

, et al. Quantified relations between exposure to tobacco smoking and bladder cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 89 observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45(3): 857–870.

IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2004; 83: 1–1438.

Compérat

Wasinger

Oszwald

, et al. Nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer, old problems, new insights. Curr Opin Urol 2022; 32(4): 352–357.

Wang

Shao

, et al. The common hallmarks and interconnected pathways of aging, circadian rhythms, and cancer: implications for therapeutic strategies. Research (Wash D C) 2025; 8: 612.

Wang

, et al. Tracing the evolution of sex hormones and receptor-mediated immune microenvironmental differences in prostate and bladder cancers: from embryonic development to disease. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2025; 12(13): e2407715.

10.

Tuo

Feng

Jiang

, et al. Unveiling clinical significance and tumor immune landscape of CXCL12 in bladder cancer: insights from multiple omics analysis. Chin J Cancer Res 2023; 35(6): 686–701.

11.

Song

Peng

Qin

, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutation attenuates response to immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic urothelial carcinoma by driving immunosuppressive microenvironment. J Immunother Cancer 2023; 11(9): e006643.

12.

Liu

Zhu

Song

, et al. Thermal intravesical chemotherapy reduce recurrence rate for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 29.

13.

Russo

Bizzarri

Filomena

, et al. Relationship between loss of Y chromosome and urologic cancers: new future perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16(22): 3766.

14.

Ferro

Catellani

Bianchi

, et al. Enhanced prognostic value of four-tier hybrid grading system in Ta non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int. Epub ahead of print June 2025. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16828.

15.

Song

Peng

Qin

, et al. Antibiotic use attenuates response to immune checkpoint blockade in urothelial carcinoma via inhibiting CD74-MIF/COPA: revealing cross-talk between anti-bacterial immunity and ant-itumor immunity. Int J Surg 2025; 111(1): 972–987.

16.

Babjuk

Burger

Capoun

, et al. European association of urology guidelines on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (Ta, T1, and Carcinoma in Situ). Eur Urol 2022; 81(1): 75–94.

17.

Kramer

Altieri

Hurle

, et al. Current evidence of transurethral en-bloc resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3(6): 567–576.

18.

Bryan

Collins

Daykin

, et al. Mechanisms of recurrence of Ta/T1 bladder cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92(6): 519–524.

19.

Yang

Lin

Gao

, et al. Is the en bloc transurethral resection more effective than conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 2020; 104(5–6): 402–409.

20.

Sari

Rajwa

Mori

, et al. Comparison of clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes between transurethral en bloc resection and conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis with focus on different energy sources. J Endourol 2022; 36(4): 535–547.

21.

Yuen-Chun

Cheng

Tsang

, et al. Transurethral en bloc resection versus standard resection of bladder tumour: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Eur Urol 2024; 86(2): 103–111.

22.

Kim

Patel

MI.

Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9(6): 3056–3072.

23.

Rubio-Briones

Algaba

Gallardo

, et al. Recent advances in the management of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer using a multidisciplinary approach: practical recommendations from the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary (SOGUG) Working Group. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13(19): 4762.

24.

Sfakianos

Kim

Hakimi

, et al. The effect of restaging transurethral resection on recurrence and progression rates in patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer treated with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin. J Urol 2014; 191(2): 341–345.

25.

Flaig

Spiess

Agarwal

, et al. Bladder cancer, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 18(3): 329–354.

26.

Svatek

Hollenbeck

Holmäng

, et al. The economics of bladder cancer: costs and considerations of caring for this disease. Eur Urol 2014; 66(2): 253–262.

27.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.

28.

Slim

Nini

Forestier

, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73(9): 712–716.

29.

Egger

Davey

Schneider

, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315(7109): 629–634.

30.

Hemmingsen

Lund

Gluud

, et al. Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d6898.

31.

Tierney

Stewart

Ghersi

, et al. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007; 8: 16.

32.

Barendregt

Doi

Lee

, et al. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67(11): 974–978.

33.

D’Andrea

Soria

Hurle

, et al. En bloc versus conventional resection of primary bladder tumor (eBLOC): a prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2023; 6(5): 508–515.

34.

Fan

Zhang

Fan

, et al. Risk stratification for the rate and location of residual bladder tumor for the decision of re-transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 788568.

35.

Hashem

Mosbah

El-Tabey

, et al. Holmium laser en-bloc resection versus conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors for treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7(5): 1035–1043.

36.

Henglong

Boya

Zheng

, et al. The individual surgical protocol of transurethral en bloc resection of bladder tumor based on VI-RADS and preliminary experience. Chin J Urol 2021; 42: 180–184.

37.

Hurle

Casale

Lazzeri

, et al. En bloc re-resection of high-risk NMIBC after en bloc resection: results of a multicenter observational study. World J Urol 2020; 38(3): 703–708.

38.

Levy

Péricart

Bajeot

, et al. Do we need a re-TUR after en bloc resection of T1 stage bladder cancer?. World J Urol 2024; 42(1): 475.

39.

Migliari

Buffardi

Ghabin

Thulium laser endoscopic en bloc enucleation of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Endourol 2015; 29(11): 1258–1262.

40.

Muto

Collura

Giacobbe

, et al. Thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for en bloc resection of bladder cancer: clinical and histopathologic advantages. Urology 2014; 83(4): 851–855.

41.

Poletajew

Krajewski

Stelmach

, et al. En-bloc resection of urinary bladder tumour - a prospective controlled multicentre observational study. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2021; 16(1): 145–150.

42.

Soria

D’Andrea

Moschini

, et al. Predictive factors of the absence of residual disease at repeated transurethral resection of the bladder. Is there a possibility to avoid it in well-selected patients?. Urol Oncol 2020; 38(3): 71–77.

43.

Wolters

Kramer

Becker

, et al. Tm:YAG laser en bloc mucosectomy for accurate staging of primary bladder cancer: early experience. World J Urol 2011; 29(4): 429–432.

44.

Cao

Wang

, et al. Clinical outcomes of reresection in patients with high-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with en bloc transurethral resection: a retrospective study with a 1-year follow-up. J Endourol 2021; 35(12): 1801–1807.

45.

Yanagisawa

Sato

Hayashida

, et al. Do we need repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for pathological T1 bladder cancer?. BJU Int 2023; 131(2): 190–197.

46.

Yanagisawa

Matsukawa

Iwatani

, et al. En bloc resection versus conventional TURBT for T1HG bladder cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30(6): 3820–3828.

47.

Yang

Liu

Yang

, et al. Transurethral en bloc resection with monopolar current for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer based on TNM system. Transl Cancer Res 2020; 9(4): 2210–2219.

48.

Zhou

Wang

, et al. Can a second resection be avoided after initial thulium laser endoscopic en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer? a retrospective single-center study of 251 patients. BMC Urol 2020; 20(1): 30.

49.

Zhou

Yang

Zhou

, et al. Will repeat resection after initial transurethral en bloc resection benefit patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer? a propensity score matching analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023; 149(9): 5861–5869.

50.

Mori

D‘Andrea

Enikeev

, et al. En bloc resection for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: review of the recent literature. Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30(1): 41–47.

51.

, et al. Efficiency of transurethral En-bloc resection vs. Conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an umbrella review. Cancer Med 2024; 13(11): e7323.

52.

Teoh

Mayor

, et al. En-bloc resection of bladder tumour as primary treatment for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: routine implementation in a multi-centre setting. World J Urol 2021; 39(9): 3353–3358.

53.

Petov

Timofeeva

Sukhanov

, et al. Prospective non-randomized comparison of transurethral laser En bloc resection vs. Conventional resection of bladder tumors larger than 3 cm. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2024; 76(4): 436–441.

54.

Babaevskaya

Morozov

Fridman

, et al. En bloc resection of large bladder tumor: is it feasible and reasonable?. Curr Opin Urol 2025; 35(4): 385–389.

55.

Cumberbatch

Foerster

Catto

, et al. Repeat transurethral resection in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2018; 73(6): 925–933.

56.

Yanagisawa

Kawada

von Deimling

, et al. Repeat transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis in the contemporary era. Eur Urol Focus 2024; 10(1): 41–56.

57.

Divrik

Sahin

Yildirim

, et al. Impact of routine second transurethral resection on the long-term outcome of patients with newly diagnosed pT1 urothelial carcinoma with respect to recurrence, progression rate, and disease-specific survival: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 2010; 58(2): 185–190.

58.

Calò

Chirico

Fortunato

, et al. Is repeat transurethral resection always needed in high-grade T1 bladder cancer?. Front Oncol 2019; 9: 465.

59.

Zapała

Dybowski

Poletajew

, et al. Clinical rationale and safety of restaging transurethral resection in indication-stratified patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2018; 16(1): 6.

60.

Wang

Zhang

, et al. Modulating and imaging macrophage reprogramming for cancer immunotherapy. Phenomics 2024; 4(4): 401–414.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB

0.11 MB