To the Editor We read with great interest the article by Williams et al1 evaluating the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked database to compare outcomes and cost of radical cystectomy (RC) with trimodal bladder preservation therapy (BPT) for older patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Using propensity score matching, the authors demonstrate improved survival and decreased costs for RC. However, we would like to caution readers on several points.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Molitoris JK, Simone CB. Utility of Bladder-Sparing Therapy vs Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(2):185–186. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4371
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: