State of the nation: Understanding the current NHS treatment pathway to identify opportunities to advance future care of patients with high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer in the UK (SPAN‐UK)

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to understand clinical pathways for patients with high‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (HR‐NMIBC) from diagnosis to follow‐up and to identify opportunities to improve care. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted via structured online interviews with consented NHS healthcare professionals (HCPs) from the United Kingdom (UK) between June and September 2025. Topics surveyed included MDT structures/roles, diagnostic timelines, adjuvant treatment, radical cystectomy (RC) decision making, current bladder‐sparing treatment and clinical trial access. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Results Seventy HCPs were included and reported that typically; 88.5% of patients achieve diagnosis within 6–8 weeks of referral, and 11.4% reported delays beyond 8 weeks. BCG maintenance duration and completion rates varied. Following BCG induction, a median (IQR) of 20.0% (5.0–32.5%) and 60.0% (40.0–70.0%) of patients completed ≥2 or ≤1 years of maintenance, respectively; 1.0% (1.0–2.0%) failed to complete induction. For BCG‐unresponsive HR‐NMIBC, HCPs reported that a mean ( SD ) proportion of 53.4 (18.1)% of patients tend to be eligible for and consent to RC, 22.0 (12.6)% tend to be eligible but decline RC and 24.6 (14.9)% tend to be ineligible. Bladder‐sparing options remain limited, with 60% of HCPs regarding further BCG as the most appropriate option. All respondents agreed that adherence to quality performance indicators (QPIs) and a national bladder cancer audit would be beneficial. Insufficient specialist nurse capacity to meet foreseeable demands of HR‐NMIBC patient care was reported by 70% ( n = 49) of HCPs. Conclusion Results reveal variability in real‐world HR‐NMIBC care within the NHS. Delays in diagnosis, inconsistent BCG maintenance duration, lack of evidence‐based alternatives to BCG and a lack of bladder‐sparing treatment and trial options in the BCG‐unresponsive setting were identified. Findings highlight unmet needs in relation to MDT resourcing, diagnostic efficiency, trial access, QPI adherence and a national bladder cancer audit.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BJUI Compass
Published
2026-06-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70236
Primary Topic
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

State of the nation: Understanding the current NHS treatment pathway to identify opportunities to advance future care of patients with high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer in the UK (SPAN‐UK)

Jonathan Aning, James W.F. Catto, Kathryn Chatterton, P. Mariappan et al.
BJUI Compass
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
article

State of the nation: Understanding the current NHS treatment pathway to identify opportunities to advance future care of patients with high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer in the UK (SPAN‐UK)

Jonathan Aning, James W.F. Catto, Kathryn Chatterton, P. Mariappan, Rebecca Martin, Simran Gill, Joseph Hickey, Bernadett Szabados, Edward Ottley, Stephen McCormack
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to understand clinical pathways for patients with high‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (HR‐NMIBC) from diagnosis to follow‐up and to identify opportunities to improve care. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted via structured online interviews with consented NHS healthcare professionals (HCPs) from the United Kingdom (UK) between June and September 2025. Topics surveyed included MDT structures/roles, diagnostic timelines, adjuvant treatment, radical cystectomy (RC) decision making, current bladder‐sparing treatment and clinical trial access. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Results Seventy HCPs were included and reported that typically; 88.5% of patients achieve diagnosis within 6–8 weeks of referral, and 11.4% reported delays beyond 8 weeks. BCG maintenance duration and completion rates varied. Following BCG induction, a median (IQR) of 20.0% (5.0–32.5%) and 60.0% (40.0–70.0%) of patients completed ≥2 or ≤1 years of maintenance, respectively; 1.0% (1.0–2.0%) failed to complete induction. For BCG‐unresponsive HR‐NMIBC, HCPs reported that a mean ( SD ) proportion of 53.4 (18.1)% of patients tend to be eligible for and consent to RC, 22.0 (12.6)% tend to be eligible but decline RC and 24.6 (14.9)% tend to be ineligible. Bladder‐sparing options remain limited, with 60% of HCPs regarding further BCG as the most appropriate option. All respondents agreed that adherence to quality performance indicators (QPIs) and a national bladder cancer audit would be beneficial. Insufficient specialist nurse capacity to meet foreseeable demands of HR‐NMIBC patient care was reported by 70% ( n = 49) of HCPs. Conclusion Results reveal variability in real‐world HR‐NMIBC care within the NHS. Delays in diagnosis, inconsistent BCG maintenance duration, lack of evidence‐based alternatives to BCG and a lack of bladder‐sparing treatment and trial options in the BCG‐unresponsive setting were identified. Findings highlight unmet needs in relation to MDT resourcing, diagnostic efficiency, trial access, QPI adherence and a national bladder cancer audit.

BJUI CompassVol. 7(7)
North Bristol NHS Trust (GB), Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Western General Hospital (GB), The Open Group (GB), Wycombe General Hospital (GB), Edinburgh Cancer Research (GB), University of Bristol (GB), University College London (GB), University of Sheffield (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.