
Opinion|Videos|February 18, 2025
Adoption of New Treatments for BCG-Unresponsive NMIBC
Author(s)Mark D. Tyson, II, MD, MPH
A panelist discusses how the ability to administer newer non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treatments in local urology practices rather than specialized oncology centers reduces patient burden and travel requirements while suggesting that increased education and support could help more health care providers adopt these treatment options.
Advertisement
Episodes in this series

- From an operational standpoint, how important is it that these treatments can be administered by urologists locally, without the need to refer patients to oncology centers? Please discuss the overall burden on patients, systemic adverse effects, and the need to travel to specialized centers.
- What strategies would you recommend to encourage more health care practitioners to adopt newer treatment modalities for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC?
Advertisement
Related to this article

This FAQ outlines key recommendations and practical takeaways from the AUA/SUO guideline amendment on the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC.

Peter Clark, MD, discusses key updates to NMIBC guidelines, including revisions to risk stratification, the emerging role of biomarkers, and how to navigate treatment options for BCG-unresponsive disease.

The AMA issued separate codes for subfascial and subcutaneous implantation of a tibial neuromodulation device.

Exploratory analyses suggest persistent immune remodeling after aglatimagene plus radiation in localized prostate cancer.

John P. Sfakianos, MD, discusses how ctDNA can be optimally integrated into bladder cancer clinical trials.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Urology Times
1
Avoiding False Positives on Prostate Cancer PSMA PET Scans
2
The UroOnc Minute: Key Updates to the AUA NMIBC Guideline, With Peter E. Clark, MD
3
John Sfakianos, MD, on integrating ctDNA into bladder cancer trials
4
AMA issues Category I CPT codes for implantable tibial neuromodulation in UUI
5





