Jiawei Zhu

Purpose: The objective of this study aimed to explore whether the original IVC regimen should be continued after the second TURBT or whether the IVC induction phase should be restarted from the beginning. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 137 patients who underwent a second TURBT at the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University between April 2014 and June 2022. Based on the pathological findings, patients were divided into two groups: group A patients, who did not have a residual tumor on pathological examination after the second TURBT; and group B patients, who had residual tumor. Recurrence was determined using cystoscopy and imaging every three months. The endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Result: In the entire cohort, there was a statistically significant difference in the RFS between patients in the two IVC regimens (p = 0.029). The RFS of patients in group B1 was significantly lower than that of patients in group B2 (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in RFS between the subgroups A1 and A2 (p = 0.560). Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that the IVC regimen after a second TURBT (p = 0.012) and T stage after a second TURBT (p = 0.005) were both independent predictors for patient RFS. Conclusion: If the pathological findings of the second TURBT specimen is benign, patients can continue their previous treatment regimen without restarting an IVC induction phase. Unnecessary IVC can be avoided in these patients. In contrast, for patients with residual tumors in the second TURBT specimen, the need to restart the IVC induction phase should be emphasized to improve patient prognosis.