Mark D. Tyson, II, MD, MPH

A panelist discusses how urologists considering newer treatment modalities for BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) should be encouraged by positive clinical trial data while ensuring proper training, patient selection, and establishment of treatment protocols in their practice.

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.

A panelist discusses how less frequent treatment administration schedules and simpler delivery requirements of newer gene therapies reduce clinic resource burden by minimizing staff time, equipment usage, and biosafety requirements, allowing for more efficient allocation of health care resources.

A panelist discusses how treatment decisions for BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) involve careful consideration of patient preferences, long-term cost-effectiveness, and available financial assistance programs, balancing the higher upfront costs of newer therapies with their potential economic benefits from reduced recurrence rates and treatment frequency.

A panelist discusses how targeted gene therapy has revolutionized BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treatment through agents like nadofaragene firadenovec, which shows promising complete response rates at 3 months, though long-term follow-up remains crucial for assessing durability of response and comparing real-world outcomes with clinical trial data.

A panelist discusses how BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has evolved from having limited treatment options beyond radical cystectomy to now having several therapeutic alternatives including intravesical chemotherapy and immunotherapy, though each current option comes with its own efficacy limitations and adverse effect profiles that must be carefully weighed against patient factors.

"In terms of results, complete response rate at any time point for the cohort was 74.5%," says Mark D. Tyson, II, MD, MPH.