Close this search box.

Comparison of HRQOL After TURBT and Radical Treatment for Bladder Cancer: Findings from Renal and Urology News

Bladder cancer is a common malignancy that affects thousands of individuals worldwide. The treatment options for bladder cancer vary depending on the stage and severity of the disease. Two commonly used treatment approaches are transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) and radical treatment. While both methods aim to remove the cancerous cells, they differ in their invasiveness and impact on the patient’s quality of life.

A recent study published in Renal and Urology News compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between patients who underwent TURBT and those who received radical treatment for bladder cancer. The findings shed light on the potential benefits and drawbacks of each treatment option, helping clinicians make informed decisions and patients understand what to expect during their recovery.

TURBT is a minimally invasive procedure that involves removing the tumor from the bladder lining using a cystoscope inserted through the urethra. It is typically performed for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or as a diagnostic tool to determine the stage and grade of the tumor. TURBT is associated with fewer complications and a shorter recovery time compared to radical treatment.

On the other hand, radical treatment, such as radical cystectomy, involves removing the entire bladder along with nearby lymph nodes and, in some cases, other organs like the prostate or uterus. This approach is usually reserved for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) or when NMIBC has progressed despite previous treatments. Radical treatment offers a higher chance of complete cancer removal but is more invasive and has a longer recovery period.

The study included a total of 300 patients diagnosed with bladder cancer who underwent either TURBT or radical treatment. The researchers assessed HRQOL using validated questionnaires that measured physical, emotional, and social well-being before and after treatment. The results showed that both groups experienced improvements in HRQOL after treatment, but there were notable differences between the two approaches.

Patients who underwent TURBT reported better physical functioning and fewer urinary symptoms compared to those who received radical treatment. This finding is not surprising as TURBT preserves the bladder, allowing patients to maintain normal urinary function. However, TURBT patients reported more anxiety and depression symptoms, possibly due to the fear of cancer recurrence or the need for repeated procedures.

In contrast, patients who underwent radical treatment had lower physical functioning scores but reported better emotional well-being and fewer worries about cancer recurrence. This could be attributed to the fact that radical treatment offers a higher chance of complete cancer removal, providing patients with a sense of relief and peace of mind.

The study also found that patients who received radical treatment were more likely to experience complications such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. These side effects can significantly impact a patient’s HRQOL and may require additional interventions or support.

Overall, the study highlights the importance of considering both the clinical outcomes and HRQOL when choosing between TURBT and radical treatment for bladder cancer. While TURBT offers a less invasive approach with better physical functioning, it may be associated with increased anxiety and the need for regular surveillance. On the other hand, radical treatment provides a higher chance of complete cancer removal but comes with potential complications and longer recovery time.

Ultimately, the decision should be made on an individual basis, taking into account the patient’s overall health, tumor characteristics, and personal preferences. Open communication between patients and healthcare providers is crucial to ensure that the chosen treatment aligns with the patient’s goals and expectations.