Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06205277 |
Other study ID # |
113/21 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
January 1, 2022 |
Est. completion date |
December 31, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
January 2024 |
Source |
University of Trieste |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The START study is a multicentre retrospective project. The aim is to identify
clinico-pathological predictors of residual tumor at time of second transurethral resection
of bladder tumor (re-TURBt) and to identify well-selected candidates for a risk-adapted
strategy in which this procedure could be safely spared.
Description:
Background
Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBt) is the standard procedure for bladder cancer
(BCa) diagnosis and represents, at the same time, the most important therapeutic moment for
patients with non muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). A second or re-staging TURBt
(re-TURBt), performed within 2 - 6 weeks from the initial TURBt, is currently recommended in
all patients harboring tumor invasion into the lamina propria (pT1). The importance of
re-TURBT lies not only in the inadequacy of the initial resection but also in its ability in
providing additional prognostic information essential for risk-stratification refining.
However, it should be underlined that re-TURBt is an invasive and morbid procedure that
severely affects patients' quality of life as it has to be performed on a elderly subset of
patients that is maybe still suffering from the consequences of the previous surgery.
Moreover, re-TURBt represents a costly procedure and a non-negligible source of logistic
difficulties since it has to be scheduled within 2 to 6 weeks from the previous resection,
making waiting lists longer especially for non-high-volume centers.
For all these reasons, not all the published literature agrees on the value of re-TURBt.
Recently many authors focused their attention to this debated topic, questioning whether the
technique used for resection, the timing of the resection itself, or the presence of CIS or
the presence of detrusor muscle in the first sampling could impact on the presence of
residual disease at second TURBt.
As a cornerstone in the management of high-risk NMIBC patients, recently it was pointed out
as re-TURBt could be safely spared in some cases in favor of immediate conservative or
radical treatments as timing a crucial crossroad in BCa landscape.
Here, a multicentre cohort of 321 patients found that the presence of detrusor muscle at
first TURBt specimen, the absence of concomitant CIS and the en-bloc resection technique were
independent predictors of negative histology at re-TURBt.
Bearing this in mind, the aim of this multicentre study is to identify predictors of residual
tumor at re-TURBt and to further explore their clinical applicability within a risk-adapted
strategy to identify patients who can be safely spared from this procedure.
Hypothesis Residual disease at time of re-TURBt has distinct patterns of presentation.
Study Aims To define clinico-pathological predictors of residual tumor at time of re-TURBt.
To identify well-selected candidates for a risk-adapted strategy in which this procedure
could be safely spared.
Outcome Measures Primary Objectives: to explore the rate of influence and the impact on
residual tumor at re-TURBt among: clinical and demographic variables, preoperatory systemic
inflammatory markers, surgical determinants, and pathological features.
Secondary Objectives: to test the applicability and validity of such predictors into a
nomogram to identify who could be safely spared from re-TURBt.