SII-ONCO-BCG (Moscow strain), and ImmunoBCG (Moreau RdJ strain). [4][5][6] Meta-analysis by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) (n = 2596) suggested no major differences in efficacy among various BCG strains used for intravesical instillation. 7,8 However, conflicting results from various studies have made this topic controversial. 9,10 ImmuCyst, the Connaught strain, had previously been widely accepted worldwide. Oncotice, the Tice strain, was introduced in 2013 in our institute owing to the worldwide shortage of the Connaught strain. There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of the Tice strain in comparison with the Connaught strain. According to a previous meta-analysis of 24 randomized clinical trials, maintenance treatment with BCG could reduce the risk of progression. 7 Hence, it would be interesting to compare the different BCG strains in real-world practice. We retrospectively compared the Connaught and Tice strains in terms of their efficacy and adverse events (AE) in patients who underwent at least one maintenance course after the induction course, that is, nine intravesical instillations. METHODSIn this single-center, retrospective study, patients with stage Ta, T1 NMIBC, or carcinoma in situ (CIS) from 2007 to 2018 after .

No abstract

No abstract

not been well-described to date. For ctDNA, it is unclear whether a personalized targeted assay (as has been previously described) is necessary or whether a gene panel may suffice. Here, we compared the performance of these biologically distinct assays in a cohort of metastatic patients.METHODS: CTCs were defined as cytokeratin (CK) or EpCAM positive with the RareCyte selection-free immunofluorescent staining platform. ctDNA was assayed with the PlasmaSelect64 assay, a probe capture NGS panel with 1000x coverage. Matched tissue specimens were sequenced with elio Tissue Complete.RESULTS: Matched CTC and ctDNA samples were collected for N[16 patients. For 5 patients, 3 replicate time points were collected. Median (range) CTC count was 2.5 (0-170/7.5mL peripheral blood) and number of detected somatic mutations was 2 (0-7). 75% (12/16) patients had detectable CTCs, and 73% (11/15) patients had detectable somatic mutations, similar to the published parameter of 24/37 (67%) ctDNA detection in metastatic UC with a custom designed panel (Wyatt et al Vancouver). Median cell free DNA (cfDNA) yield was 9.03 ng/mL consistent with prior reports of a lower frequency of ctDNA in advanced bladder cancer as opposed to other malignancies. Multiple comparisons of CTC count to ct/cfDNA failed to produce any relationship. We discovered a similar genomic landscape to that which has been published in the past, with frequent mutations in TP53, TERT, and ERBB2.CONCLUSIONS: CTC and ctDNA assays provided distinct and complimentary results. Both liquid biopsies show promise in urothelial cancer and deserve further investigation. A ctDNA assay using a gene panel had similar detection sensitivity in a metastatic UC cohort when compared to a previously described custom patient mutation assay.