Turn on cookies to sign in
Signing in saves your progress to your Curie account. We can only do that with cookies on — turn them on to continue.
The growing menu of bladder-preserving therapies for BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) means clinicians can't rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. From systemic immunotherapy to intravesical gene therapy and sustained chemotherapy delivery, each option comes with its own efficacy profile, side effects, and logistical demands. Experts say patient priorities — not just response rates — should drive treatment decisions.
As the treatment landscape for BCG-unresponsive high-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) expands, oncologists and urologists face a more complex decision-making process. At the 2026 LUGPA Annual Meeting, NYU's Dr. Katie Murray emphasized that initial complete response (CR) rates alone shouldn't guide therapy selection — durability, toxicity, treatment burden, and what patients actually want from bladder preservation all matter equally.
Several approved options are now on the table: pembrolizumab (systemic immunotherapy), nadofaragene firadenovec (intravesical gene therapy), nogapendekin alfa inbakicept plus BCG (IL-15 agonist), and the newly FDA-approved gemcitabine intravesical system. Each has a distinct delivery mechanism, visit schedule, and side effect profile — meaning the "best" choice varies widely by patient.
By the Numbers:
Why it matters: With no universal treatment sequence established, individualized counseling is essential. Factors like travel distance, catheter tolerance, and office workflow are just as relevant as clinical data — and radical cystectomy should always remain part of the conversation.
