非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的诊断及治疗进展
Progress in Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.14123130, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 李 辉:吉首大学医学院,湖南 吉首;范诗秋*:吉首大学第一附属医院泌尿外科,湖南 吉首
关键词: 非肌层浸润性膀胱癌经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术膀胱灌注治疗Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Bladder Perfusion Therapy
摘要: 膀胱癌是泌尿系统最为常见的恶性肿瘤之一,初次诊断时多为非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)。对于非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的治疗,经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)是经典的手术方式。近年来,随着医疗设备的改进及医疗技术的提高,出现了一些新型的治疗手段,如经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除术、荧光膀胱镜等。TURBT术后常常联合膀胱灌注治疗,常用药物有卡介苗和化疗药物,不过在灌注治疗中对于药物、疗程和剂量的选择目前存在争议。因此,本文就非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的诊断和治疗进行综述。
Abstract: Bladder cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors of the urinary system. Most of the initial diagnosis is non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). For the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is a classic surgical method. In recent years, with the improvement of medical equipment and medical technology, some new treatment methods have emerged, such as en-bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumor and fluorescence cystoscopy. TURBT is often combined with intravesical instillation after TURBT. The commonly used drugs are BCG and chemotherapeutic drugs. However, the choice of drugs, course of treatment and dose in intravesical instillation therapy is currently controversial. Therefore, this article reviews the diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).
文章引用:李辉, 范诗秋. 非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的诊断及治疗进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(12): 641-649. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.14123130

1. 引言

全球范围内,膀胱癌(BC)是泌尿系统最为常见的恶性肿瘤之一,其患病率位列恶性肿瘤的第10位。2020年全球新发膀胱癌病例约57.3万例,死亡约21.3万例[1]。据统计,2022年中国新发膀胱癌病例约为9.2万例,死亡病例约为4.3万例。在所有男性恶性肿瘤中,膀胱癌的排名在第八位;而在所有女性恶性肿瘤中,则排在第十位之后[2]。膀胱癌最常见的组织学类型是尿路上皮癌,其他类型,如鳞状细胞癌约占1.8%,腺癌约占1.9% [3]。根据膀胱肿瘤浸润的深浅程度,膀胱癌可以被划分为非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)和肌层浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC),其中75%~85%的膀胱癌患者初次诊断为非肌层浸润性癌(NMIBC),仅有15%~25%的膀胱癌患者初次诊断为肌层浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC) [4]。膀胱癌的治疗多以手术治疗为主,其中NMIBC以经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)治疗为主,具有创伤小、恢复快等优势,但是存在切除不彻底、术后复发率及进展率较高等缺点[5] [6]。有研究指出,TURBT术后复发率较高,1年的复发率为15%~61%,5年的复发率为31%~78% [7]。更重要的是,NMIBC进展成MIBC风险高,5年内1%~45%的NMIBC可进展至MIBC [8]。鉴于非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的复发率和进展率相对较高,采取严格的监测措施和精细化的治疗管理尤为重要。目前,经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)结合术后膀胱灌注治疗构成了NMIBC的核心治疗方案。然而,学术界对于具体治疗方案的选择仍存在一些争议。本文将针对非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的诊断和治疗方式,包括手术治疗和灌注治疗等方面进行综述,以期为临床干预提供依据。

2. 临床表现

血尿是膀胱癌最常见的临床表现,也是初诊时的常见主诉。据估计,约80%的膀胱癌患者会出现肉眼血尿,而几乎所有的膀胱癌患者都会在尿液检查中发现显微镜下的红细胞。然而,相较于镜下血尿,肉眼血尿往往预示着更高的肿瘤临床分期[9]。尿频、尿急、尿痛等膀胱刺激征是晚期膀胱癌常见的临床表现,常伴有血尿,主要由肿瘤坏死、破溃、感染引起[10]。膀胱癌还可表现出一些非特异性症状,当肿瘤侵犯输尿管口或腹膜后时,可能导致腰疼、肾积水和肾功能不全;当肿瘤侵犯膀胱颈部或三角区时,可能引起膀胱出口梗阻,导致排尿困难和尿潴留等;当膀胱癌转移到盆腔或骨盆时,可能引起腰骶部疼痛和盆腔肿块等;骨转移时,可能出现骨痛[11]

3. 辅助检查

目前,膀胱癌的诊断主要通过影像学检查、肿瘤标志物检测、膀胱镜活检和诊断性电切等方法。

超声检查是一种极其简便且无创的影像学检查。近年来,随着超声探头制造技术的发展,其在泌尿系统疾病诊断中的价值日益显现,尤其在膀胱占位性病变中得到广泛应用[12]。然而,常规超声在肿瘤的良恶性鉴别、肿瘤血管显像以及分期、分级的评价中效果一般。近年来,由于超声造影(CEUS)的广泛应用,弥补了常规超声在这方面的不足。CT检查在膀胱癌的诊断中具有较高的准确率,并且能够有效评估肿瘤对周围组织侵犯的程度[13]。然而,CT检查具有一定的辐射量,是一种有创检查,可重复性差,对患者的健康存在风险。而且其在鉴别膀胱癌对肌层浸润程度、评价肿瘤周围淋巴结受侵犯程度以及进行肿瘤的影像学分期方面都存在一定的弊端[14]。MRI检查作为一种无辐射、无创伤的影像学检查,在各类疾病的诊断中得到了广泛应用,在泌尿系统肿瘤尤其是膀胱癌的诊断中扮演着重要角色。其T1加权成像能够清晰显示膀胱周围软组织及淋巴结,有效评估周围组织受肿瘤侵犯的程度及肿瘤淋巴结转移的可能性;T2加权成像则能更加准确地评估原发肿瘤的情况,尤其在肿瘤的T分期上具有重要的诊断价值,且在准确性方面相较于CT检查更具优势[15] [16]

膀胱癌的肿瘤标志物生物检测目前已有BTAstat、BTAtrak、NMP22以及尿荧光原位杂交技术(FISH)等多种技术。其中,尿荧光原位杂交技术(FISH)相对准确度较高,也是目前临床应用最为广泛的检查。然而,由于其无法有效区分膀胱癌的分期和浸润深度,因此该项检查在临床上主要用于膀胱癌的筛查[17]

膀胱镜检查及活检是目前诊断膀胱癌最有效的方法之一。膀胱镜检查凭借其直视的优势,可以直观地观察肿瘤的位置、大小、数量、外观和病变周围的粘膜组织等,必要时还可以取肿瘤组织进行病理活检,从而进一步明确诊断。经验丰富的泌尿外科医生能通过膀胱镜来区分肿瘤和非肿瘤性病变,且有较高的准确率[18],但病理活检的结果仍具有决定性的作用。

4. 治疗

4.1. 外科治疗

4.1.1. 经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)

经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)是诊断和治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的主要手段。该手术以其微创、操作简便、并发症少、手术时间短和术后恢复迅速等优势而受到推崇[19]。TURBT不仅能够切除肿瘤组织,减少复发风险,还能明确肿瘤的病理分级和临床分期。传统的TURBT采用单极电流进行,由于其工作原理限制,在单极电切期间,电流可通过患者身体形成闭合回路,容易出现闭孔神经刺激(闭孔反射),同时电切温度较高和内收肌突然收缩,可能发生膀胱壁意外穿孔和邻居组织的热损伤。最后,传统的TURBT在非导电冲洗溶液(水、甘氨酸、山梨糖醇或甘露糖醇)中进行可能引起血液循环和电解质异常,进而导致危及生命的TUR综合征[20]。基于以上缺点,近年来临床上逐渐推广双极等离子电切,由于双极自带电流回路、电切温度较低和使用等渗盐水作为冲洗溶液,对人体电生理影响较小,手术当中较少引起闭孔神经刺激(闭孔反射),同时凝固止血效果较好,热穿透损伤较小,可能降低手术并发症[21]。在Song等的研究中,对于双极等离子电切与传统电切术在术后复发率方面进行比较,单极组纳入51例患者,双极组纳入56例患者,术后随访2年,肿瘤复发率分别为45.1% (23/51)、37.5% (21/56),两者之间无明显统计学差异[22]。在Del等的研究中,纳入132例患者,初次电切后,肿瘤中位复发时间在双极组和单极组分别为12.4和11.9个月,两者无明显统计学差异[23]

4.1.2. 二次电切术(Re-TURBT)

研究发现,对于Ta期膀胱癌患者,17%~72%在二次电切术时发现残留,15%~30%伴有分期升高(≥T2) [24] [25]。对于T1期膀胱癌患者,33%~78%在二次电切时发现残留,30%伴有分期升高(≥T2) [26]-[29]。可见,初次行经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)后,残留的肿瘤组织与疾病复发进展风险的增加已被广泛研究证实。因此,为了减少肿瘤的残留和复发以及肿瘤进展的风险,推荐进行二次电切术(Re-TURBT)。二次电切术通常在初次TURBT后的2至6周内执行,其主要目标是清除可能残留的肿瘤组织,并重新评估肿瘤的分级和分期[30]。根据欧洲泌尿外科学会(EAU)指南[31]建议以下患者应接受Re-TURBT:1. 初次TURBT未能完全切除肿瘤,且切除样本中未包含膀胱肌肉层的患者(原发性原位癌和低级别Ta期肿瘤除外);2. 所有T1期肿瘤的患者;3. 所有高级别肿瘤的患者(原发性原位癌除外)。而根据美国泌尿外科协会(AUA)指南[31]建议以下患者应接受Re-TURBT:1. 对于初次TURBT未能包含固有肌层的T1期病变患者;2. 对于复发的高级别T1、Ta以及原位癌(CIS)病变患者。程柏松等[32]和丁显超等[33]的研究发现,二次电切术能清除初次TURBT术后残留的肿瘤组织,以降低肿瘤的复发和进展风险,因此建议根据指南对部分NMIBC患者进行Re-TURBT。文献报道显示,Re-TURBT能够显著降低T1期膀胱癌的术后复发率和疾病进展率,分别从63.24%和11.76%降至25.6%和4.05% [34],从而显著减少复发和进展的风险,改善患者的预后。

4.1.3. 经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除术

传统TURBT的主要缺点在于肿瘤必须使用切开和分散的逐件技术,以及难以对碎片化和严重损坏的样本进行准确的病理评估。基于以上原因,产生了整块切除的概念。经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除术(TERBT)的概念最早由Kawada [35]等于1997年以个案形式报道。Kawada认为膀胱肿瘤整块切除术相较于传统经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术在病理标本诊断方面具有更为准确和更高质量的价值。ERBT切除标本的DM (逼尿肌)检出率更高[36] (81%~100% vs 54%~87%),同时有更低的闭孔神经反射率和膀胱穿孔率[37]。目前为止,不同的能源(单极、双极和激光等)已被应用于经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除术(ERBT)。欧洲一项多中心研究比较了不同类型的ERBT之间的疗效及安全性,包括电切和激光两个大组,前者又分为单极和双极亚组,后者包含铥激光和钬激光亚组。四个亚组几乎所有的标本都含有肌层组织;此外,电切组和激光组的术后1年肿瘤复发率分别为24.5% (23/94)和18.5% (10/54) [38],二者差异无统计学意义。然而一些研究发现,电切ERBT对侧壁肿瘤有很高的闭孔神经反射风险[39],尤其是单极电刀;激光ERBT虽然能够避免闭孔神经反射,尤其适用于侧壁肿瘤,但也存在某些不足,如激光ERBT对后部和膀胱穹窿部的高位肿瘤切除困难[40]。此外,一些新型手术技术,如海博刀(Hybrid knife)和ZEDD剪刀,也被相继用于经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除术(ERBT)。程勇毅等[41]和李亚伟等[42]的研究发现,使用海博刀治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)的手术方法是安全可行的,并且能够得到更为准确的肿瘤病理学分级。然而,这些结果仍需通过高质量的随机对照试验(RCT)来进一步验证其安全性及疗效。

4.2. 荧光膀胱镜

荧光膀胱镜可以提供膀胱壁的荧光图像。在进行膀胱镜检查之前,经膀胱灌注入光敏剂,泌尿道上皮细胞均会吸收这种试剂,然而这种试剂会在肿瘤细胞中过度积累。在蓝光(波长为380~480 nm)照射下,肿瘤细胞会呈现典型的红色荧光,与健康上皮细胞在蓝光下形成的蓝色背景形成鲜明对比。有研究指出[43] [44],与白光膀胱镜下行膀胱肿瘤电切术对比,荧光膀胱镜下肿瘤切除术可提高患者的无瘤生存率,减少肿瘤复发。Geavlete [45]等对比了72例荧光膀胱镜下行TURBT与64例普通膀胱镜下行TURBT的高危NMIBC患者早期肿瘤复发率,发现荧光膀胱镜下TURBT术后早期复发率(17%)明显低于普通膀胱镜下TURBT术后早期复发率(37%),认为荧光膀胱镜可显著降低高危NMIBC患者早期复发率。如怀疑肿瘤病理分级、分期较高或原位癌时,可考虑采用荧光膀胱镜下行TURBT,以降低术后肿瘤残余率和复发率。

4.3. 术后辅助性膀胱内灌注治疗

膀胱内灌注治疗是NMIBC患者TURBT术后的标准方案,能消灭残留肿瘤细胞和隐匿肿瘤组织,可分为即刻灌注(术后24小时内灌注一次)、诱导灌注(术后6~8周每周灌注一次)和维持灌注(术后持续一年灌注)。常用药物包括免疫制剂和化疗药物。

4.3.1. 免疫制剂

EUA指南指出,BCG (卡介苗)是中高危NMIBC患者TURBT术后首选的膀胱灌注药物[46]。一项荟萃分析表明,与单纯TURBT相比,联合BCG膀胱灌注治疗的肿瘤复发和进展风险分别降低44%和61% [47]。此外,TURBT术后BCG灌注较传统化疗药物灌注可显著提升NMIBC患者整体预后[9]。然而,BCG作为一种减活疫苗,其副作用明显大于化疗药物,具体表现为局部不良反应如尿路刺激,以及全身不良反应如发热和乏力[10] [48]。此外,更为重要的是,约有40%的NMIBC患者对BCG膀胱灌注治疗无反应,且可能导致15%的患者进展为肌层浸润性膀胱癌[49]。另外考虑到BCG在产能及定价上的劣势,临床中实际的使用率并不高。除了BCG膀胱灌注治疗外,临床上还可以使用干扰素、铜绿假单胞菌等免疫相关制剂进行膀胱灌注,但它们的效果不如BCG或者在国内的认可度不够,因此还需要更多的研究数据来支撑,以探索新的膀胱灌注免疫治疗方案。

4.3.2. 化疗药物

丝裂霉素C (Mitomycin C, MMC)属于抗生素类细胞周期非特异性药物,1967年开始临床使用,为全球指南推荐用药。Bosschieter [50]等的研究发现,对于低危NMIBC患者,在经TURBT后进行MMC膀胱灌注治疗,相比于单独的TURBT,可以降低12%至31%的肿瘤复发率。另有研究指出,在预防中高危NMIBC患者无进展生存期方面,使用MMC膀胱灌注治疗能够获得与卡介苗(BCG)相似的效果[51]。MMC对于低风险NMIBC患者的治疗效果已经得到了肯定,而在治疗中高风险NMIBC患者时,与其他化疗药物相比,MMC并没有表现出优势,并且可能会导致更多的不良反应。目前,MMC联合热化学灌注、电动势能给药等辅助手段用于特殊类型的NMIBC患者,正在成为新的研究方向。

吉西他滨是一种嘧啶类抗代谢药物,主要通过以下机制发挥抗肿瘤作用:1. 阻止肿瘤细胞从G1期向S期的演进,从而抑制肿瘤细胞的复制;2. 进入RNA双链,使双链识别错误,并抑制RNA的合成,从而产生细胞毒性。Bartoletti [52]等的研究发现,中高危NMIBC患者TURBT术后行吉西他滨灌注化疗,1年复发率能降低59.6%,且不良反应发生率明显低于其他化疗药物。孙健[53]等的研究发现,相比较吡柔比星,TURBT术后灌注吉西他滨疗效确切,安全可靠,且利于降低患者术后复发风险。目前认为,吉西他滨膀胱灌注对于不同危险分层的NMIBC患者都显示出良好的治疗效果,对于中高危患者,标准可行的治疗方案是在术后即刻灌注吉西他滨,并加上维持灌注。此外,对于不能耐受BCG治疗的高危患者以及在接受BCG灌注后复发的患者,吉西他滨已被证实可以作为一种有效的替代治疗方案[54] [55]

表柔比星(Epirubicin, EPI)作为第一代蒽环类抗肿瘤药物阿霉素(Adriamycin, ADM)的同分异构体,与阿霉素相比,具有同等的抗肿瘤效果及较低的骨髓和心脏毒性。当前的研究已经证实,表柔比星不仅具有较强的抗肿瘤活性和较低的耐药性,还拥有良好的渗透性和亲脂性。这些特性使得它能够迅速在膀胱上皮内达到有效的药物浓度,并在膀胱局部发挥出较强的抗肿瘤效果[56]。因此,表柔比星已成为TURBT后膀胱灌注治疗的首选药物之一。黄玉清[57]等的研究发现,表柔比星膀胱灌注在预防初发非肌层浸润性膀胱癌手术后复发方面具有明确的临床效果,能够有效抑制肿瘤标志物和炎症反应,显著提升患者的生活质量,降低肿瘤复发率并减缓其进展速度,值得广泛推广使用。

4.3.3. 其他药物

噻替哌、羟喜树碱和紫杉醇等药物也可作为膀胱灌注化疗药物。然而,由于它们的作用效果不佳且不良反应较多,目前在临床上的应用较少。

5. 总结与展望

膀胱癌是泌尿系统中最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,因其高复发率和进展率而日益受到关注。膀胱癌的典型症状为血尿,诊断依据包括病史、体格检查和辅助检查。其中,膀胱镜检查及活检是诊断膀胱癌的金标准。对于非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC),标准的外科治疗方法是经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(TURBT)。然而,由于手术后存在较高的肿瘤复发和进展风险,常常需要在手术后联合进行膀胱灌注治疗。二次TURBT (重复经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术)有助于降低复发和进展的风险。随着手术技术的提高和对疾病认识的深入,整块经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术(ERBT)应运而生,它不仅可以减少肿瘤种植,还可以完整切除肿瘤样本以进行准确的病理评估。膀胱灌注治疗是减少NMIBC患者术后肿瘤复发和进展的有效措施。尽管如此,最佳治疗方案仍存在争议,需要更多的研究支持。同时,我们也期待更多的研究者发现新型药物或治疗措施用于NMIBC的灌注治疗中。随着医学的不断进步,我们有理由相信未来会有更多的膀胱癌患者能够得到根治。

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., Cao, M., Sun, D., He, S., et al. (2022) Cancer Statistics in China and United States, 2022: Profiles, Trends, and Determinants. Chinese Medical Journal, 135, 584-590.
https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000002108
[3] Li, K., Lin, T., Xue, W., Mu, X., Xu, E., Yang, X., et al. (2015) Current Status of Diagnosis and Treatment of Bladder Cancer in China—Analyses of Chinese Bladder Cancer Consortium Database. Asian Journal of Urology, 2, 63-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2015.04.016
[4] Compérat, E., Varinot, J., Moroch, J., Eymerit-Morin, C. and Brimo, F. (2018) A Practical Guide to Bladder Cancer Pathology. Nature Reviews Urology, 15, 143-154.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2018.2
[5] 陶伟, 徐明, 朱进, 等. 980 nm红激光经尿道膀胱肿瘤整块切除与经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的疗效比较[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2021, 21(12): 1086-1090.
[6] 岐宏政, 陈刚, 汪自力, 等. 经尿道红激光膀胱肿瘤切除术和经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的疗效及安全性评价[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2020, 19(18): 1978-1980.
[7] Teoh, J.Y., Kamat, A.M., Black, P.C., Grivas, P., Shariat, S.F. and Babjuk, M. (2022) Recurrence Mechanisms of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer—A Clinical Perspective. Nature Reviews Urology, 19, 280-294.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-022-00578-1
[8] Lu, J., Xia, Q., Lu, Y., Liu, Z., Zhou, P., Hu, H., et al. (2020) Efficacy of Intravesical Therapies on the Prevention of Recurrence and Progression of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis. Cancer Medicine, 9, 7800-7809.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3513
[9] Marttila, T., Järvinen, R., Liukkonen, T., Rintala, E., Boström, P., Seppänen, M., et al. (2016) Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin versus Combination of Epirubicin and Interferon-α2a in Reducing Recurrence of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Carcinoma: Finnbladder-6 Study. European Urology, 70, 341-347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.034
[10] González-Padilla, D.A., González-Díaz, A., Guerrero-Ramos, F., Rodríguez-Serrano, A., García-Jarabo, E., Corona-laPuerta, M., et al. (2021) Quality of Life and Adverse Events in Patients with Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Treatment with BCG, MMC, or Chemohyperthermia. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 39, 76.e9-76.e14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.07.003
[11] Lenis, A.T., Lec, P.M., Chamie, K. and MSHS, M. (2020) Bladder Cancer. JAMA, 324, 1980-1991.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17598
[12] Datta, S.N., Allen, G.M., Evans, R., et al. (2002) Urinary Tract Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Haematuria—A Report of over 1000 Cases. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 84, 203-205.
[13] Capalbo, E., Kluzer, A., Peli, M., Cosentino, M., Berti, E. and Cariati, M. (2015) Bladder Cancer Diagnosis: The Role of CT Urography. Tumori Journal, 101, 412-417.
https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000331
[14] Paik, M.L., Scolieri, M.J., Brown, S.L., Spirnak, J.P. and Resnick, M.I. (2000) Limitations of Computerized Tomography in Staging Invasive Bladder Cancer before Radical Cystectomy. Journal of Urology, 163, 1693-1696.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67522-2
[15] Akmangit, I., Lakadamyali, H., Oto, A., et al. (2003) [Staging of Urinary Bladder Tumors with CT and MRI]. Tanisal Ve Girisimsel Radyoloji: Tibbi Goruntuleme Ve Girisimsel Radyoloji Dernegi Yayin Organi, 9, 63-69.
[16] Lawrentschuk, N., Lee, S.T. and Scott, A.M. (2013) Current Role of PET, CT, MR for Invasive Bladder Cancer. Current Urology Reports, 14, 84-89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0308-y
[17] Sarosdy, M.F., Schellhammer, P., Bokinsky, G., Kahn, P., Chao, R., Yore, L., et al. (2002) Clinical Evaluation of a Multi-Target Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Assay for Detection of Bladder Cancer. Journal of Urology, 168, 1950-1954.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64270-x
[18] Cina, S.J., Epstein, J.I., Endrizzi, J.M., Harmon, W.J., Seay, T.M. and Schoenberg, M.P. (2001) Correlation of Cystoscopic Impression with Histologic Diagnosis of Biopsy Specimens of the Bladder. Human Pathology, 32, 630-637.
https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.24999
[19] Babjuk, M., Böhle, A., Burger, M., Capoun, O., Cohen, D., Compérat, E.M., et al. (2017) EAU Guidelines on Non-Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: Update 2016. European Urology, 71, 447-461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.041
[20] Osman, Y. and Harraz, A.M. (2016) A Review Comparing Experience and Results with Bipolar versus Monopolar Resection for Treatment of Bladder Tumors. Current Urology Reports, 17, Article No. 21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0579-1
[21] Geavlete, B., Stănescu, F., Moldoveanu, C., et al. (2013) NBI Cystoscopy and Bipolar Electrosurgery in NMIBC Management—An Overview of Daily Practice. Journal of Medicine and Life, 6, 140-145.
[22] Song, X.S., Yang, D.Y., Chen, X.Y., Jiang, T., Li, Q.L., Guan, H.W., et al. (2010) Comparing the Safety and Efficiency of Conventional Monopolar, Plasmakinetic, and Holmium Laser Transurethral Resection of Primary Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Journal of Endourology, 24, 69-73.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0171
[23] Del Rosso, A., Pace, G., Masciovecchio, S., Saldutto, P., Galatioto, G.P. and Vicentini, C. (2012) Plasmakinetic Bipolar versus Monopolar Transurethral Resection of Non‐Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Single Center Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Urology, 20, 399-403.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03174.x
[24] Babjuk, M. (2010) Second Resection for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Carcinoma: Current Role and Future Perspectives. European Urology, 58, 191-192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.019
[25] Yanagisawa, T., Kawada, T., von Deimling, M., Bekku, K., Laukhtina, E., Rajwa, P., et al. (2024) Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Contemporary Era. European Urology Focus, 10, 41-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.002
[26] Naselli, A., Hurle, R., Paparella, S., Buffi, N.M., Lughezzani, G., Lista, G., et al. (2018) Role of Restaging Transurethral Resection for T1 Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Urology Focus, 4, 558-567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.12.011
[27] Herr, H.W. (2015) Role of Repeat Resection in Non–muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 13, 1041-1046.
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2015.0123
[28] Brauers, A., Buettner, R. and Jakse, G. (2001) Second Resection and Prognosis of Primary High Risk Superficial Bladder Cancer: Is Cystectomy Often Too Early? Journal of Urology, 165, 808-810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66532-9
[29] Brausi, M., Collette, L., Kurth, K., van der Meijden, A.P., Oosterlinck, W., Witjes, J.A., et al. (2002) Variability in the Recurrence Rate at First Follow-Up Cystoscopy after TUR in Stage Ta T1 Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Combined Analysis of Seven EORTC Studies. European Urology, 41, 523-531.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(02)00068-4
[30] 矫宾宾, 张萌, 李荣强, 等. 非肌层浸润性膀胱癌手术治疗现状[J]. 现代泌尿生殖肿瘤杂志, 2018, 10(5): 317-320.
[31] Power, N.E. and Izawa, J. (2016) Comparison of Guidelines on Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (EAU, CUA, AUA, NCCN, Nice). Bladder Cancer, 2, 27-36.
https://doi.org/10.3233/blc-150034
[32] 程柏松, 陈锦华, 陈剑晖, 等. 非肌层浸润膀胱癌二次电切的临床意义及肿瘤复发的危险因素分析[J]. 福建医科大学学报, 2022, 56(1): 42-45.
[33] 丁显超, 宋黎明, 瓦哈甫瓦斯里江, 等. 二次电切对非肌层浸润性膀胱癌疗效的影响分析[J]. 首都医科大学学报, 2019, 40(1): 84-89.
[34] Di̇vri̇k, R.T., Yildirim, Ü., Zorlu, F. and Özen, H. (2006) The Effect of Repeat Transurethral Resection on Recurrence and Progression Rates in Patients with T1 Tumors of the Bladder Who Received Intravesical Mitomycin: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Urology, 175, 1641-1644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)01002-5
[35] Kawada, T., Ebihara, K., Suzuki, T., Imai, K. and Yamanaka, H. (1997) A New Technique for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors: Rotational Tumor Resection Using a New Arched Electrode. Journal of Urology, 157, 2225-2226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64724-4
[36] Yanagisawa, T., Mori, K., Motlagh, R.S., Kawada, T., Mostafaei, H., Quhal, F., et al. (2022) En Bloc Resection for Bladder Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Differential Effect on Safety, Recurrence and Histopathology. Journal of Urology, 207, 754-768.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000002444
[37] Li, Z., Zhou, Z., Cui, Y. and Zhang, Y. (2022) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Perioperative Outcomes and Prognosis of Transurethral En-Bloc Resection vs. Conventional Transurethral Resection for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. International Journal of Surgery, 104, Article ID: 106777.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106777
[38] Kramer, M.W., Rassweiler, J.J., Klein, J., Martov, A., Baykov, N., Lusuardi, L., et al. (2015) En Bloc Resection of Urothelium Carcinoma of the Bladder (EBRUC): A European Multicenter Study to Compare Safety, Efficacy, and Outcome of Laser and Electrical En Bloc Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor. World Journal of Urology, 33, 1937-1943.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1568-6
[39] Enikeev, D., Babjuk, M., Shpikina, A., Shariat, S. and Glybochko, P. (2021) En Bloc Resection for Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Selecting a Proper Laser. Current Opinion in Urology, 32, 173-178.
https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000968
[40] Nicoletti, R., Gauhar, V., Castellani, D., Enikeev, D., Herrmann, T.R.W. and Teoh, J.Y. (2023) Current Techniques for En Bloc Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Hands-On Guide through the Energy Landscape. European Urology Focus, 9, 567-570.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.04.007
[41] 程永毅, 李晶, 屈卫星, 等. 经尿道内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱肿瘤82例疗效分析[J]. 现代肿瘤医学, 2016, 24(20): 3249-3252.
[42] 李亚伟, 黄后宝, 卓栋, 等. 经尿道海博刀黏膜下剥离整块切除非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的初步研究[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 33(11): 870-873.
[43] Denzinger, S., Burger, M., Walter, B., Knuechel, R., Roessler, W., Wieland, W.F., et al. (2007) Clinically Relevant Reduction in Risk of Recurrence of Superficial Bladder Cancer Using 5-Aminolevulinic Acid-Induced Fluorescence Diagnosis: 8-Year Results of Prospective Randomized Study. Urology, 69, 675-679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.12.023
[44] Rink, M., Babjuk, M., Catto, J.W.F., Jichlinski, P., Shariat, S.F., Stenzl, A., et al. (2013) Hexyl Aminolevulinate-Guided Fluorescence Cystoscopy in the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Patients with Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Critical Review of the Current Literature. European Urology, 64, 624-638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.007
[45] Geavlete, B., Jecu, M., Multescu, R., Georgescu, D. and Geavlete, P. (2010) HAL Blue-Light Cystoscopy in High-Risk Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer—Returbt Recurrence Rates in a Prospective, Randomized Study. Urology, 76, 664-669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.067
[46] Babjuk, M., Burger, M., Compérat, E.M., Gontero, P., Mostafid, A.H., Palou, J., et al. (2019) European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (TaT1 and Carcinoma in Situ)—2019 Update. European Urology, 76, 639-657.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.016
[47] Chou, R., Selph, S., Buckley, D.I., Fu, R., Griffin, J.C., Grusing, S., et al. (2017) Intravesical Therapy for the Treatment of Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Urology, 197, 1189-1199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.090
[48] Kuperus, J.M., Busman, R.D., Kuipers, S.K., Broekhuizen, H.T., Noyes, S.L., Brede, C.M., et al. (2021) Comparison of Side Effects and Tolerability between Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, Reduced-Dose BCG and Gemcitabine for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Urology, 156, 191-198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.062
[49] Seidl, C. (2020) Targets for Therapy of Bladder Cancer. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 50, 162-170.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.02.006
[50] Bosschieter, J., Nieuwenhuijzen, J.A., Vis, A.N., van Ginkel, T., Lissenberg-Witte, B.I., Beckers, G.M.A., et al. (2018) An Immediate, Single Intravesical Instillation of Mitomycin C Is of Benefit in Patients with Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Irrespective of Prognostic Risk Groups. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 36, 400.e7-400.e14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.026
[51] Gårdmark, T., Jahnson, S., Wahlquist, R., Wijkström, H. and Malmström, P. (2007) Analysis of Progression and Survival after 10 Years of a Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Mitomycin‐C and Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin in Patients with High‐Risk Bladder Cancer. BJU International, 99, 817-820.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06706.x
[52] Bartoletti, R., Cai, T., Gacci, M., Giubilei, G., Viggiani, F., Santelli, G., et al. (2005) Intravesical Gemcitabine Therapy for Superficial Transitional Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Phase II Prospective Multicenter Study. Urology, 66, 726-731.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.04.062
[53] 孙健, 孙承文, 丁锡奇. 等离子电切术联合吉西他滨膀胱灌注治疗浅表性膀胱癌的复发及生存情况观察[J]. 贵州医药, 2018, 42(3): 299-301.
[54] Di Lorenzo, G., Perdonà, S., Damiano, R., Faiella, A., Cantiello, F., Pignata, S., et al. (2010) Gemcitabine versus Bacille Calmette‐Guérin after Initial Bacille Calmette‐Guérin Failure in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial. Cancer, 116, 1893-1900.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24914
[55] Porena, M., Del Zingaro, M., Lazzeri, M., Mearini, L., Giannantoni, A., Bini, V., et al. (2010) Bacillus Calmette-Guérin versus Gemcitabine for Intravesical Therapy in High-Risk Superficial Bladder Cancer: A Randomised Prospective Study. Urologia Internationalis, 84, 23-27.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000273461
[56] 许海涛. 经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术后吉西他滨、表柔比星序贯膀胱灌注治疗非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的临床效果[J]. 河南医学研究, 2019, 28(12): 2232-2233.
[57] 黄玉清, 张良, 周海滨. 表柔比星膀胱灌注预防初发非肌层浸润性膀胱癌术后复发的临床效果[J]. 临床合理用药, 2023, 16(26): 78-80, 84.