Introduction
Low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories have been defined to help guide the treatment of patients with NMIBC (Ta, T1, CIS). However, while low- and high-risk disease have been well-classified, the intermediate-risk (IR) category has traditionally comprised a heterogeneous group of patients that do not fit into either of these categories. As a result, many urologists remain uncertain about the categorization of patients as ‘intermediate-risk’ as well as the selection of the most appropriate therapeutic option for this patient population.
Purpose
To examine current literature and clinical practice guidelines on IR NMIBC and, based on this review, provide urologists with a better understanding of this heterogeneous risk group as well as practical recommendations for the management of IR patients.
Materials and Methods
The IBCG analyzed published clinical trials, meta-analyses and current clinical practice guidelines that examined IR NMIBC available as of September 2013. The definition of IR, patient outcomes and guideline recommendations were considered, as were the limitations of the available literature and additional parameters that may be useful in guiding treatment decisions in IR patients.
Results
Currently, definitions and management recommendations for IR NMIBC vary. The most simple and practical definition is that proposed by the IBCG and the AUA: multiple and/or recurrent low-grade Ta tumors. The IBCG proposes that the following factors be considered to aid in clinical decisions in IR disease: number (>1) and size (> 3cm) of tumors, timing (recurrence within 1 year) and frequency (> 1 per year) of recurrences, and previous treatment. In patients without these risk factors, a single, immediate instillation of chemotherapy is advised. In those with 1–2 risk factors, adjuvant intravesical therapy (intravesical chemotherapy or maintenance BCG) is recommended, and previous intravesical therapy should be considered when choosing between these adjuvant therapies. For those with 3–4 risk factors, maintenance BCG is recommended. It is also important that all IR patients are accurately risk stratified both at initial diagnosis and during subsequent follow-up. This requires an appropriate TURBT, vigilance to rule out CIS or other potential high-risk tumors, and review of histological material directly with the pathologist.
Conclusions
IR disease is a heterogeneous group and there is paucity of independent studies comparing therapies and outcomes in the subgroups of IR patients. The IBCG has proposed a management algorithm to assist in this regard that considers tumor characteristics, timing and frequency of recurrences and previous treatment. Subgroup analyses of the IR subjects in pivotal EORTC trials and meta-analyses will be important to validate the proposed algorithm and support clear evidence-based recommendations for the subgroups of IR patients.