Benign Conditions

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Bladder Cancer

Female Urology

Genitourinary Cancers

Genomic Testing

Hormone Therapy

Kidney Cancer

Challenging Anatomy

Innovative Techniques

Laser Lithotripsy

PCNL Tech & Devices

Ureteroscopy Tech & Devices

Kidney Stones

Men's Health

Next-Generation Imaging

Voiding Dysfunction

OAB and Incontinence

Pediatrics

Controveries in Urologic Cancer

Drug Therapy

Prostate Cancer

Sexual Dysfunction

UTUC

Cosmetic Surgery

Urologic Surgery

Business

Practice Management

Malpractice Consult

Health Law & Policy

Media

Case-Based Peer Perspectives

Investigator Perspectives 

Medical World News

Podcasts

Urology Medical Perspectives

UTv Videos

Peer Exchange

Special Report

Virtual Tumor Board

Insights

Medcast

Peers & Perspectives

Conferences

Conference Listing

Conference Previews 

Conference Recaps

Publications

Urology Times Journal

Editorial Advisory Board

Urologists in Cancer Care

Supplements and Featured Publications

Clinical Forums Recaps

CME/CE

Resources

Begin Your Journey: Tackling Burnout

Live Events

Interactive Tools

Job Board

Partners

Treatment Landscape Evolutions

Subscribe

Benjamin P. Saylor is associate editor of Urology Times, an Advanstar Communications publication.

The conversation covers practical, case-based strategies for counseling MSM patients.

Pearls & Perspectives: Sexual Health in MSM, with Joshua R. Gonzalez, MD

Articles

"Overall, these findings add to the growing body of evidence that [shows that] apalutamide may offer a survival advantage in real-world setting in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer," says Mehmet A. Bilen, MD.

Real-world studies compare overall survival between ARPIs in mCSPC

The IDeate-Prostate01 trial plans to enroll approximately 1440 patients whose tumors progressed following prior treatment with an ARPI.

Phase 3 trial launches of ifinatamab deruxtecan vs chemotherapy in mCRPC

The approval is supported by landmark results from the pivotal phase 2 SANS-UUI trial.

FDA approves integrated sacral neuromodulation system for urinary urge incontinence

Urology Times is the leading resource for urologists & allied health professionals offering clinical analysis, policy perspectives, & practical advice.

About Us

Advertise

Editorial

Contact Us

Terms and Conditions

Privacy

Do not sell my Personnal Information

Urology Times – News & Insights for Urologists & Health Professionals

Facebook

LinkedIn

Spotlight

Peers and Perspectives

Clinical

1rem

Authors

Patel is a research fellow in the Department of Urology at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York.

"As more genes are classified and catalogued, diagnosis and treatment of kidney stones inches further and further toward 'precision medicine,' " write Rutul Patel, DO, MS, and Alexander Small, MD.

Kidney stone treatment inches toward precision medicine

The FDA has accepted a new drug application (NDA) for zoliflodacin, an investigational first-in-class, single-dose, spiropyrimidinetrione oral antibiotic for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older with uncomplicated gonorrhea, Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics announced in a news release.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date for the application is December 15, 2025.

Zoliflodacin is an oral antibiotic that inhibits type II topoisomerase, a bacterial enzyme that plays a key role in bacterial function and reproduction. According to the company, “If approved, zoliflodacin would be the first new antibiotic for treating gonorrhea in decades.”

The FDA has also granted a Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation to zoliflodacin, which enables the agent to benefit from priority review and market exclusivity.

“Today’s acceptance of the zoliflodacin NDA marks significant progress toward delivering health care providers with a potential new oral treatment option for uncomplicated gonorrhea, including infections caused by drug-resistant strains,” said David Altarac, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics, in the news release.

 “We look forward to working closely with the FDA during its review and, if approved, we are committed to expediting the availability of zoliflodacin to patients in the U.S.”

The NDA for zoliflodacin is supported by data from several clinical trials conducted through a collaboration with the Global Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership (GARDP). This portfolio of studies includes a pivotal phase 3 trial (NCT03959527) that evaluated zoliflodacin vs a standard of care (SOC) regimen (500 mg ceftriaxone intramuscular plus 1g oral azithromycin) in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea.

Overall, the trial met its primary end point by demonstrating that zoliflodacin was non-inferior to the SOC regimen regarding microbiological response at the urogenital site at the test of cure visit (6 +/- 2 days following treatment). Specifically, the microbiological cure rate was 90.9% in the zoliflodacin arm vs 96.2% in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm, representing a difference of 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 8.7%) across patients in the micro-intent-to-treat (ITT) population.

The 2 cohorts also demonstrated comparable results on the trial’s secondary end point of microbiological response at extragenital (rectal or pharyngeal) sites. Specifically, at pharyngeal sites, the cure rate was 79.2% in the zoliflodacin arm vs 78.6% in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm (difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -20.8 to 16.3). At rectal sites, the cure rate was 87.3% and 88.6%, respectively (difference, 1.23%; 95% CI, -14.4 to 12.6).

Zoliflodacin was generally well-tolerated in the trial. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 46.2% of patients in the zoliflodacin arm vs 46.4% of patients in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm. The most common TEAEs in the zoliflodacin arm included headache (9.9%), neutropenia (6.8%), and leukopenia (3.9%).

There were no deaths or serious adverse events reported in either arm.

In total, the phase 3 trial included 930 patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea, including patients living with HIV. The study enrolled participants across 16 clinical trial sites in the US, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Thailand.

According to Innoviva, the phase 3 study was “the largest clinical trial ever conducted for a new treatment against gonorrhea infection.”

Those enrolled in the study were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 3 g single-dose, oral zoliflodacin (n = 621) or to 500 mg ceftriaxone intramuscular plus 1g oral azithromycin (n = 309). The primary end point was microbiological cure by culture at urogenital sites in the micro-ITT populations, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. The trial’s secondary end point was microbiological cure at extragenital sites.

“This important milestone demonstrates the crucial role that public-private partnerships can play in tackling the escalating global antimicrobial resistance crisis,” said Manica Balasegaram, Executive Director of GARDP, in the news release.

 “If zoliflodacin is approved, this collaboration paves the way for millions of people across the world to get access to a potentially powerful new drug to treat multidrug-resistant gonorrhea.”

1. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics receives FDA New Drug Application acceptance for zoliflodacin, a first-in-class oral antibiotic for uncomplicated gonorrhea in adults. News release. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics. Published online and accessed June 10, 2025. https://innovivaspecialtytherapeutics.com/innoviva-specialty-therapeutics-receives-fda-new-drug-application-acceptance-for-zoliflodacin-a-first-in-class-oral-antibiotic-for-uncomplicated-gonorrhea-in-adults/

2. FDA Grants Priority Review for Zoliflodacin New Drug Application for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Gonorrhea and Assigns Target PDUFA Date of December 15, 2025. News release. Innovia Specialty Therapeutics, Inc. Published online and accessed June 12, 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250612432209/en/FDA-Grants-Priority-Review-for-Zoliflodacin-New-Drug-Application-for-the-Treatment-of-Uncomplicated-Gonorrhea-and-Assigns-Target-PDUFA-Date-of-December-15-2025 

3. Luckey A, Broadhurst H, Daram P, et al. Oral zoliflodacin is non-inferior to a combination of ceftriaxone and azithromycin for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea: results of a large global Phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Presented at: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Global Congress. April 27-30, 2024. Barcelona, Spain. https://gardp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Zoli001-Topline-ECCMID2024_final_V1.0_23Apr2024_.pdf

The FDA has accepted the NDA for zoliflodacin, a novel oral antibiotic for treating uncomplicated gonorrhea in patients aged 12 and older. Zoliflodacin, which inhibits type II topoisomerase, has been granted a Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation, allowing for priority review. Clinical trials, including a pivotal phase 3 study, demonstrated that zoliflodacin is non-inferior to the standard regimen of ceftriaxone and azithromycin. The trials showed comparable microbiological cure rates at urogenital and extragenital sites, with zoliflodacin being generally well-tolerated and no serious adverse events reported.

The NDA is supported by a pivotal phase 3 trial of zoliflodacin vs ceftriaxone plus azithromycin in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea. 

News

FDA accepts new drug application for zoliflodacin for uncomplicated gonorrhea

Dr. De La Cerda provides an overview of a patient case involving a 68 year-old male presenting with severe back pain, with an analysis of the clinical presentation, workup, and medical history.

Bone Predominant mCRPC Patient Case

Video content above is prompted by the following:

What are your initial impressions of the case?

Video Series

The FDA has accepted a Biologics License Application (BLA) seeking approval of nivolumab (Opdivo) co-formulated with Halozyme’s proprietary recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20), or subcutaneous nivolumab, for the treatment of patients with all previously approved solid tumor indications for nivolumab as a monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance following completion of combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or in combination with chemotherapy or cabozantinib (Cabometyx).

Nivolumab is currently approved under several indications, including in combination with ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), in combination with cabozantinib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC, for the treatment of patients with advanced RCC who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

The FDA is set to have a decision regarding the subcutaneous nivolumab formulation on or by December 29, 2024.

 According to a news release from Bristol Myers Squibb,

 approval of the formulation would make it the first and only subcutaneously administered PD-1 inhibitor.

“We believe subcutaneous nivolumab has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients, which is reinforced by the FDA’s acceptance of our application,” said Gina Fusaro, PhD, vice president, global program lead, Bristol Myers Squibb, in the news release.

 “Opdivo is a foundational PD-1 inhibitor approved for many different types of cancer, and our continued investment in research that puts patients first remains a priority. If approved by the FDA, the subcutaneous administration of nivolumab would provide patients and their physicians with a new option that delivers the same well-known benefits as IV Opdivo but with the improved convenience of an injection administered in 3 to 5 minutes rather than a 30-to-60-minute infusion.”

The BLA submission is supported by findings from the phase 3 CheckMate-67T trial (NCT04810078), in which subcutaneous nivolumab met the study’s co-primary end points by demonstrating noninferiority to intravenous (IV) nivolumab regarding time average nivolumab serum concentration over 28 days (C

; geometric mean ratio [GMR}, 2.098; 90% CI, 2.001-2.200) and minimum serum concentration at a steady state (C

Data from the study, which were presented at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in San Francisco, California,

 also showed that subcutaneous nivolumab demonstrated noninferiority to IV nivolumab in the key powered secondary end point of objective response rate (ORR). Specifically, the subcutaneous arm demonstrated an ORR of 24.2% (95% CI, 19.0-30.0) per blinded independent central review (BICR), compared with 18.2% (95% CI, 13.6-23.6) in the IV arm.

The safety profile for subcutaneous nivolumab was consistent with that of the IV formulation. Among patients who received the subcutaneous formulation, 8.1% experienced injection-site reactions, with all being low-grade and transient. Deaths due to study drug toxicity occurred in 3 patients in the subcutaneous arm and 1 patient in the IV arm. Most deaths that occurred during the study were due to disease progression.

In total, the phase 3, open-label CheckMate-67T trial enrolled 495 patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC who had received prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 1200 mg subcutaneous nivolumab plus rHuPH20 every 4 weeks (n = 248) or to 3 mg/kg IV nivolumab every 2 weeks (n = 247) for up to 2 years of treatment or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death.

The co-primary pharmacokinetic end points for noninferiority testing were C

 of subcutaneous nivolumab vs IV nivolumab. The key secondary end point was ORR per BICR.

Final completion of the CheckMate-67T study is expected in January 2026.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts Bristol Myers Squibb’s application for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 6, 2024. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://news.bms.com/news/corporate-financial/2024/U.S.-Food-and-Drug-Administration-Accepts-Bristol-Myers-Squibbs-Application-for-Subcutaneous-Nivolumab-nivolumab-and-hyaluronidase/default.aspx

2. Bristol Myers Squibb announces updated action date by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Published online and accessed May 21, 2024. https://investors.bms.com/iframes/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Announces-Updated-Action-Date-by-the-U.S.-Food-and-Drug-Administration-for-Subcutaneous-Nivolumab-nivolumab-and-hyaluronidase/default.aspx

3. George S, Bourlon TB, Chacon MR, et al. Subcutaneous nivolumab (NIVO SC) vs intravenous nivolumab (NIVO IV) in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety results from CheckMate 67T. 

4. A study of subcutaneous nivolumab versus intravenous nivolumab in participants with previously treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma that is advanced or has spread (CheckMate-67T). ClinicalTrials.gov. Last updated March 1, 2024. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04810078

The FDA is set to have a decision regarding the subcutaneous nivolumab formulation on or by December 29, 2024. 

FDA accepts BLA for subcutaneous nivolumab in solid tumors

Computational Histology Artificial Intelligence (CHAI) biomarkers demonstrated the ability to prognosticate outcomes for patients with high-grade (HG) Ta non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), according to data published in 

According to Valar Labs, which developed the Vesta platform that uses CHAI biomarkers, this patient population is “frequently on the borderline of guideline-based risk stratification [and] may receive different treatment depending on which guideline their provider uses.”

The CHAI platform was designed to assess risk of recurrence and progression in these patients by quantifying “histologic features, including tumor cell morphology and tumor microenvironment, from digital whole-slide images,” the authors explained.

“HG Ta tumors carry differing risks [that] current guidelines attempt to address, and clinical factors such as tumor focality and size can help delineate the true nature of these tumors. These clinical factors, however, are somewhat crude and can be misleading at times,” explained lead author Sam S. Chang, MD, MBA, Chief Surgical Officer of Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, in a news release from Valar.

 “This study demonstrated that CHAI biomarkers can offer improved and additional risk stratification that can go beyond traditional risk factors to better prognosticate outcomes in this population.”

For the study, the investigators assessed the ability of the CHAI platform to predict the risk of recurrence and progression in a retrospective multicenter cohort of 269 patients with high-grade Ta disease. They then compared the performance of the platform to existing American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) models. CHAI biomarker status was classified as either being present (indicative of higher risk) or absent. The median follow-up was 32 months (IQR, 14 to 52).

Data showed that EAU risk group was not significantly associated with high-grade recurrence-free survival (RFS) on either univariate analysis (high risk vs intermediate risk; HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.96-2.23; 

 = .074) or multivariable analysis adjusted for CHAI biomarker status. AUA high-risk was significantly associated with high-grade RFS on univariate analysis (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.07-3.48; 

 = .029), but the association did not remain significant when accounting for CHAI biomarker status.

The CHAI biomarker, however, demonstrated the ability to stratify outcomes independent of these risk groups. The presence of the CHAI biomarker was found to be significantly associated with high-grade RFS on both univariate analysis (HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.45-3.44; 

 < .001) as well as multivariate analysis when adjusting for AUA and EAU risk groups or their individual components.

The authors also noted, “The continuous output for the CHAI biomarker had higher [areas under the curve] than the AUA and EAU risk groups for prediction of both endpoints along all time points.”

There was also an association observed between the AI pathology component of the CHAI biomarker (with tumor multifocality excluded) and high-grade RFS. On multivariate analysis, the AI pathology component alone provided prognostic information beyond AUA risk (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.42-3.43; likelihood ratio 

< .001) and EAU risk (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.40-3.43; likelihood ratio 

Likewise, neither EAU (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.40 to 4.32;

 = .7) nor AUA risk groups (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.30-6.44; 

 = .7) were significantly associated with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) progression-free survival (PFS). However, there was a significant association between the AI component of the CHAI biomarker and MIBC-PFS (HR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.39-14.92; 

The association of CHAI biomarker with RFS and PFS was maintained even after the investigators excluded patients who had concurrent carcinoma in situ.

The authors noted that if the CHAI biomarker had been used to determine risk rather than the EAU and AUA stratifications, approximately 70% of patients deemed as having high risk would have been classified as being closer to intermediate risk. Further, 9.5% of patients designated as intermediate risk would have been classified as being at higher risk for recurrence and progression.

Senior author Siamak Daneshmand, MD, of the University of Southern California, concluded in the news release,

 "The ability to derive clinically meaningful predictive and prognostic information from routinely-collected pathology is a paradigm shift for the risk stratification of bladder cancer patients."

1. Chang SS, Launer B, Narayan V, et al. Computational histology artificial intelligence (CHAI) enhances risk stratification of high-grade Ta non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer in a multicenter cohort: comparison to current European Association of Urology and American Urological Association stratification schemes. 

. Published online June 12, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2025.05.035

2. Valar Labs’ CHAI biomarkers validated in new study in European Urology for predicting outcomes of high grade Ta bladder cancer. News release. Valar Labs. June 13, 2025. Accessed June 13, 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250612200267/en/Valar-Labs-CHAI-Biomarkers-Validated-in-New-Study-in-European-Urology-for-Predicting-Outcomes-of-High-Grade-Ta-Bladder-Cancer

Computational Histology Artificial Intelligence (CHAI) biomarkers have shown promise in improving risk stratification for patients with high-grade Ta non–muscle invasive bladder cancer. The CHAI platform, developed by Valar Labs, quantifies histologic features from digital whole-slide images to assess recurrence and progression risks. In a study of 269 patients, CHAI biomarkers outperformed existing American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) models in predicting outcomes. The study suggests that CHAI biomarkers could redefine risk categories, potentially altering treatment decisions for many patients.

The CHAI biomarker was shown to outperform EAU and AUA stratifications. 

CHAI biomarkers demonstrate prognostic utility for high-grade Ta NMIBC

The BCG shortage, which ramped up in 2019,

 has significantly disrupted the treatment landscape for patients with non–muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), a disease for which BCG has been the standard of care for decades. To meet this challenge, researchers, industry partners, and other clinical experts have worked together to accelerate the development of alternative therapies that offer patients options beyond BCG.

®, Anne K. Schuckman, MD, described this moment as a “renaissance” in NMIBC care. With 3 FDA approvals since 2020 and many more agents in development, urologists and patients now have a wealth of therapeutic options. This innovation is transforming how clinicians approach the management of high-risk disease, with increasing emphasis on bladder preservation and personalized treatment strategies.

Thus, with an expanding arsenal of novel therapies, urologists now face different challenges: selecting the most appropriate treatment for each patient, navigating optimal sequencing strategies, and determining which combinations may provide added benefit.

One thing is clear: We are just on the cusp of a paradigm shift in NMIBC care. These advances are not only offering patients the chance to delay or avoid radical surgery, but offer the potential for years of effective, bladder-preserving treatment. With even more therapies in the pipeline, the future holds promise for more personalized, durable, and quality-of-life–preserving approaches to care.

Schuckman is an associate professor of urology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

 In your view, how has the BCG shortage accelerated the adoption of novel alternative therapies such as gene therapy or checkpoint inhibitors?

 When the BCG shortage started, I don't think a lot of people, even at that time, were thinking that there would be a lot of trials in the BCG-naive space. I remember being in meetings with bladder cancer experts and people saying "It'd be too hard to do those trials. They'll never happen." Now, we have many trials where we have patients who are BCG-naive being treated with novel agents based on obviously preliminary data from the BCG-refractory space. To me, the shortage in BCG has really opened people's minds and scientific creativity to moving other therapies first, getting rid of the old paradigm, and saying, “Why is BCG the only thing that we're thinking about in these patients?” I think it's sparked a whole new era in how we're thinking about what the best first-line treatment for patients might be.

: As you alluded to, there has been an explosion of new options in NMIBC, with even more agents coming down the pike. From your experience, what are patients looking for when they're choosing between these different options?

 The answer is probably a little bit different for all patients. The bottom line is patients are looking for a therapy that is effective. For some people, that means long-term efficacy, and for [others] that means just buying a few years before they may need to move on to some other type of therapy. So, number 1, efficacy.

I think number 2, patients are looking for something that's going to be fairly easy to tolerate and not disrupt their life very much while they're undergoing therapy. That might mean less treatments, [or] it might mean that it's oral or easy to have administered. And 3, obviously, I think the least [adverse events] that patients experience, the better.

What are some of the biggest challenges right now for you in terms of delivering optimal bladder cancer care?

 From a patient perspective, one of the challenges right now, honestly, is that there are so many different options. If you go to one place, you're going to be offered this. If you go to another place, you're going to be offered this. Sorting through what might be the best option is tricky. I think you need to make sure that you are talking with somebody who has a few things at their fingertips so that they can help pick what might be best for an individual patient.

I think one of the big challenges right now for NMIBC providers is that we don't know the optimal sequencing for any of these agents. [There are a number of] interesting trials that are ongoing right now, and we're learning about multiple things. One, what agents can we use first? What agents should we use second? As we go forward, I think we'll learn a lot about [how these should be sequenced. We might know that a therapy works,] but does it work after somebody's had a PD-1 agent, or would it be better if they got the PD-1 agent with that? There are certainly ongoing trials right now looking at pairing systemic PD agents with intravesical therapies to try to increase immune response in that way. We've seen all these single-arm trials in a single agent, and as we start to see some of these combination agents, that'll be really interesting.

What role do you see for gene therapy in the treatment landscape moving forward?

 We're probably on the very early application of gene therapy in non–muscle invasive bladder cancer. We only have 1 approved, but we have enGene’s trial ongoing right now, which is a non-viral vector gene therapy product. I think people will start to develop more novel ways to incorporate this. As gene therapy goes forward, practitioners and patients will become more comfortable and fluid in discussing those therapies. It will become 1 part of the arsenal of how we're caring for NMIBC in the future.

Is there anything else that you wanted to add?

 It's exciting to be part of this time, which I feel like is a total renaissance in the care of patients with non–muscle invasive bladder cancer, particularly for patients with really high-risk disease. Even in just the past 3 years, this disease has gone from something where we can put off more aggressive therapy for a year, to something where we're talking about having, potentially, for some patients, years and years of sequencing therapies and allowing them to maintain their bladders. I think most patients want to do [that. These options] allow us to avoid having to do such a radical surgery in somebody with non–muscle invasive disease. It's an exciting time for investigators and an even more exciting time for patients. The science is just unbelievable, novel, and exciting.

1. CBER-regulated products: Current shortages. US Food & Drug Administration. Accessed June 16, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/cber-regulated-products-current-shortages

The BCG shortage has catalyzed a significant shift in the treatment of non–muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), leading to the development and approval of alternative therapies. This has resulted in a "renaissance" in NMIBC care, with a focus on bladder preservation and personalized treatment strategies. Urologists now face challenges in selecting appropriate treatments and sequencing strategies. Gene therapy and checkpoint inhibitors are emerging as promising options. The future of NMIBC treatment is promising, with ongoing trials and the potential for more personalized, durable, and quality-of-life–preserving approaches.

Anne K. Schuckman, MD, describes the growing number of options in NMIBC and the impact of these therapies on clinical practice.

From BCG shortage to scientific surge: Inside the NMIBC treatment renaissance

There has been an explosion of treatment options in non–muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in recent years, with even more coming down the pike. Many of these agents have demonstrated encouraging efficacy and manageable safety in clinical trials, meaning that patients and urologists must consider other factors when choosing between options.

, explains, this is a good challenge to have. The wealth of options will allow urologists to tailor treatment to both the individual’s preferences and, as we learn more, hopefully the patient’s specific disease characteristics.

He notes, “At the end of the day, it's going to be unlikely that we're going to use a single therapy for all of our patients. I think precision medicine is going to become more widespread as we understand who is going to respond best to which treatment, so I'm really excited to develop biomarkers that might help us guide us to what the best therapy is for each specific patient.”

Packiam is an associate professor of surgery at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School as well as the director of clinical and translational research in urologic oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Jersey.

Vignesh Packiam, MD, outlines key considerations for choosing between options in NMIBC.

Vignesh Packiam, MD, on choosing between options in NMIBC

Specifically, Packiam says that long-term bladder symptoms associated with treatment, in addition to the short-term tolerability data, will be important for patients to understand as we gather more data.

“I think each therapy is going to have its own unique profile with how it affects the bladder in the long-term,” he stated.

Packiam also noted, “The other difference between various therapies that are out there is logistics, both in storage and administration. Some of these products have to be kept under certain temperature conditions, or they're given at a certain dosing regimen. Those details are going to become important to different patients as well.”

"At the end of the day, it's going to be unlikely that we're going to use a single therapy for all of our patients," says Vignesh T. Packiam, MD.

Rutul Patel, DO, MS

Articles

Latest Updated Articles