After years of relatively limited therapeutic advancement, the bladder cancer treatment landscape is evolving rapidly. As the sixth most common cancer in the United States,¹ bladder cancer is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden, with treatment costs exceeding $6.5 billion in 2021.² Management often requires frequent care-team visits, repeated procedures and treatment interventions involving both urology and medical oncology, which, combined with the risk of recurrence, contribute to substantial healthcare utilization.³ As high-cost therapies, including immunotherapies, continue to reshape the treatment landscape, healthcare expenditures are expected to increase. Understanding new developments in bladder cancer and their implications is increasingly important for healthcare systems and payers alike. 

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) 

NMIBC accounts for approximately 75% of bladder cancer diagnoses.² For decades, treatment has centered on transurethral tumor resection followed by intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), a tuberculosis vaccine immunotherapy administered directly into the bladder.^4,5 Despite its longstanding role as the standard of care, BCG presents several challenges, including a chronic drug shortage, adverse effects, the need for frequent office visits, and recurrence rates approaching 40% within five years.^4,5 Recent studies of alternative BCG strains and recombinant BCG products may help alleviate supply constraints if successful.^6,7 However, neither is yet FDA-approved and cost comparisons to standard BCG are still unknown — if they reach the market, the availability and price dynamics of this foundational regimen may change. 

More substantial changes to the BCG-naïve treatment paradigm are also being explored, including whether immunotherapy combination regimens can improve outcomes beyond those achieved with BCG alone. In May 2026, durvalumab plus BCG became the first immunotherapy-based regimen approved for BCG-naïve NMIBC.⁸ The investigational immunotherapy sasanlimab has also been studied.⁹ Both regimens improved event-free survival in clinical studies but also showed higher rates of treatment-related toxicity, which may limit use in this population if risks are judged to outweigh the benefits.¹⁰ Whether immunotherapy combination regimens will meaningfully change routine care remains uncertain, but broader adoption could add complexity to care delivery by requiring closer collaboration between urology and medical oncology, as well as the added expense of oncologist visits and immunotherapy. 

Alternatives to BCG would be a major shift here, and new options could both improve outcomes and avoid dependance on BCG supply. Generic intravesical gemcitabine plus docetaxel and a gemcitabine intravesical system (Inlexzo) are both presently used after BCG and are currently in studies for BCG-naïve disease.^11,12 As these data mature, first-line treatment options for BCG-naïve NMIBC may diversify — but scrutiny on long-term data, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of new options will be required to change the standard of care. 

For patients with BCG-unresponsive disease, radical cystectomy remains the standard of care but is associated with morbidity and reduced quality of life, and several new and costly bladder-preserving therapies have recently emerged.^13,14 These include pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the intravesical therapies nadofaragene firadenovec (Adstiladrin), nogapendekin alfa inbakicept (Anktiva) administered with BCG, and a gemcitabine intravesical delivery system (Inlexzo). These therapies have novel characteristics and provide an alternative to surgery, but they involve continued visits, instillations, procedures and surveillance, as well as notably high drug costs. Comparing new options and incorporating them into practice remains challenging, as supporting trials are largely single-arm; currently used generic intravesical chemotherapy also lacks randomized data.10,15 Clinical decision-making is therefore individualized and based on the available data, patient and treatment characteristics, and logistics. Evolving data and additional agents in development will further challenge decision-makers.¹⁶ As additional options and outcomes data become available, stakeholders will need to evaluate comparative trials, mature data and information on sequencing treatment options to help clarify approaches, improve outcomes and reduce cost.¹⁷ It is critical to regularly reassess data and utilization management strategies to appropriately balance access and costs of care and, importantly, to consider total cost of care in decision-making, as well as treatment impact on recurrence, progression and quality of life.^17,18

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) 

About 25% of patients have muscle-invasive disease, which requires more aggressive treatment to prevent relapses and improve survival. Cystectomy is recommended, with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy beforehand if eligible. However, approximately 50% of patients experience recurrence within three years, and cisplatin is associated with renal toxicity and ototoxicity.¹⁹ Additionally, many patients are ineligible for cisplatin chemotherapy.²⁰ Improvement is needed, and adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab, as well as perioperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, began moving the needle.^19,21 In 2026, two additional approvals are changing practice: platinum-free perioperative therapy and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant immunotherapy. 

Initially approved for metastatic disease, enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is now advancing the treatment of MIBC. The regimen was evaluated in cisplatin-eligible patients against standard chemotherapy plus cystectomy and in cisplatin-ineligible patients against cystectomy alone.^20,22 Both trials demonstrated significantly lower risk of recurrence, progression or death. The regimen also had significantly higher rates of pathologic complete response when compared to chemotherapy, indicating no residual cancer detected at surgery.²² This first platinum-free neoadjuvant regimen significantly improves outcomes compared to standard cisplatin chemotherapy and has the potential to replace it altogether for MIBC.²³ However, challenges with this approach include the management of notable adverse effects, fewer treatment options at relapse, and a substantially higher drug costs compared with generic platinum chemotherapy.²³ 

With costly therapies becoming the standard of care, it becomes critical to treat those at the highest risk of recurrence while sparing others from unnecessary therapy, costs and side effects. Another study tested this more personalized approach: Patients with MIBC post-cystectomy were monitored with periodic ctDNA surveillance to detect molecular residual disease. ctDNA-negative patients continued surveillance, while positive patients received either adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) or placebo for up to one year. This approach significantly improved disease-free and overall survival in positive patients without a notable increase in adverse effects, and ctDNA-negative patients on surveillance had a very low risk of recurrence at one and two years.²⁴ This approach accurately identifies high-risk patients and improves survival and spares others from side effects and expensive therapy, all while maintaining a low risk of relapse — overall validating this personalized, biomarker-driven approach to bladder cancer treatment. While not yet applicable to regimens with perioperative pembrolizumab or durvalumab, it can now be used for adjuvant immunotherapy, and, with additional data, this may become the standard strategy across the board, optimizing care for patients and driving significant value for the healthcare system.  

Managed Care Takeaways 

• Bladder cancer care is changing rapidly — and becoming more expensive. Newly approved immunotherapy regimens, intravesical agents, gene therapies and biomarker-guided strategies are transforming the standard of care. This rapid change will come with financial strain for patients and the healthcare system, making it vital that health plans keep pace with the changing data, policies, guidelines and costs associated with bladder cancer.¹⁷ 
• Existing operational models may need to evolve. Successful delivery of new regimens may require closer collaboration among urology, medical oncology, community practices and larger treatment centers. 
• Optimal patient and therapy selection and sequencing for new options is still being defined. Careful patient selection, clinically appropriate utilization management strategies, and frequent reassessment as mature and comparative data emerge will be crucial to balance patient access with rising costs of care.¹⁸ 
• Overall, coverage decisions and cost comparisons must consider not only drug costs, but also improvement in outcomes, burden of care and quality of life. 

All brand names are property of their respective owners. 
 

References:  

1. 1. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. (n.d.). Cancer stat facts: Bladder cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/urinb.html   
   2. Clark, O., Sarmento, T., Eccleston, A., Brinkmann, J., Picoli, R., Daliparthi, V., Voss, J., Chandrasekar, S., Thompson, A., & Chang, J. (2024). Economic impact of bladder cancer in the USA. PharmacoEconomics – Open, 8, 837–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00512-8    
   3. Malshy, K., Lim, K., Jia, Y., Guo, W., Steidle, M., Zhu, D., Hunt, T. C., Bandari, J., & Cheng, Z. (2026). Utilization and costs among bladder cancer, other cancer, and noncancer populations in the United States. Urology, 214, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2026.06.020   
   4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2026). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Bladder cancer (Version 3.2026). https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1417  
   5. Lamm, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Crissman, J. D., Montie, J. E., Gottesman, J. E., Lowe, B. A., Sarosdy, M. F., Bohl, R. D., Grossman, H. B., Beck, T. M., Leimert, J. T., & Crawford, E. D. (2000). Maintenance bacillus Calmette-Guerin immunotherapy for recurrent Ta, T1, and carcinoma in situ transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: A randomized Southwest Oncology Group study. The Journal of Urology, 163(4), 1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67707-5   
   6. Svatek, R. S., Tangen, C., Meeks, J. J., Gilbert, S. M., Lotan, Y., Tyson, M., Crispen, P., Delacroix, S. E., Gills, J., Daneshmand, S., Woods, M., Master, V. A., Mark, J. R., Alva, A. S., Bangs, R., Nakagawa, D., Unger, J. M., Plets, M., Thompson, I. M., Jr., & Lerner, S. P. (2026). SWOG S1602: A phase III randomized trial to evaluate BCG strain differences and priming with intradermal BCG before intravesical therapy for BCG-naïve high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NCT #03091660) [Conference presentation abstract]. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 44(7 Suppl.), LBA629. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.7_suppl.LBA629   
   7. Meeks, J. (2026, May 29–June 2). ResQ133A-NMIBC: A phase 1/2 clinical trial of intravesical recombinant mycobacterium bacillus Calmette-Guérin (rBCG) in participants living with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer eligible to receive conventional BCG [Poster presentation]. 2026 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, Chicago, IL, United States. https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/257177    
   8. De Santis, M., Palou Redorta, J., Nishiyama, H., Krawczyński, M., Seyitkuliev, A., Novikov, A., Guerrero-Ramos, F., Zukov, R., Kato, M., Kawahara, T., Goeman, L., Puente, J., Hellmis, E., Powles, T., Radziszewski, P., Gust, K. M., Vasey, P., Bigot, P., Fradet, Y., … & Shore, N. D. (2025). Durvalumab in combination with BCG for BCG-naive, high-risk, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (POTOMAC): Final analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet, 406(10516), 2221–2234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01897-5   
   9. Shore, N., Powles, T., Bedke, J., Galsky, M. D., Palou Redorta, J., Ku, J. H., Kretkowski, M., Xylinas, E., Alekseev, B., Ye, D., Guerrero-Ramos, F., Briganti, A., Kulkarni, G. S., Brinkmann, J., Calella, A.-M., Cesari, R., Eccleston, A., Michelon, E., Vermette, J., … & Steinberg, G. D. (2025). Sasanlimab plus BCG in BCG-naive, high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: The randomized phase 3 CREST trial. Nature Medicine, 31, 2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03738-z   
   10. Flaig, T. W., & Peyton, C. C. (2026). Integrating new and emerging treatments into bladder cancer care. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 24(Supplement), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2026.5013   
   11. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group). (2026, July 17). Intravesical BCG vs GEMDOCE in NMIBC (BRIDGE) (Identifier No. NCT05538663). ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05538663   
   12. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. (2026, August 28). A study of TAR-200 in combination with cetrelimab or TAR-200 alone versus intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in participants with BCG-naïve high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) (SunRISe-3) (Identifier No. NCT05714202). ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05714202   
   13. Mastroianni, R., Iannuzzi, A., Ragusa, A., Tuderti, G., Ferriero, M., Anceschi, U., Bove, A. M., Brassetti, A., Misuraca, L., D’Annunzio, S., Guaglianone, S., Papalia, R., & Simone, G. (2023). Health related quality of life in patients with bladder cancer receiving a radical cystectomy. Cancers, 15(24), 5830. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15245830   
   14. Maibom, S. L., Joensen, U. N., Poulsen, A. M., Kehlet, H., Brasso, K., & Røder, M. A. (2021). Short-term morbidity and mortality following radical cystectomy: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 11(4), e043266. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043266   
   15. O’Donnell, M. A. (2026, April 17). Intravesical GEM/DOCE for HR BCG-unresponsive NMIBC (Identifier No. NCT07322263). ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07322263   
   16. Steinberg, G. D., Li, R., Joshi, S., Bivalacqua, T., & Tyson, M. (2026). Cystectomy-free survival following cretostimogene grenadenorepvec in high-risk BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ: Results from the phase 3 BOND-003 trial (Cohort C) [Conference abstract]. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 44(7 Suppl.), 741. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.7_suppl.741   
   17. Cookson, M. S. (2025, January 11). The economics of bladder cancer in the US: Increasing costs and unsustainable patterns. Urology Times, 53(2). https://www.urologytimes.com/view/the-economics-of-bladder-cancer-in-the-us-increasing-costs-and-unsustainable-patterns   
   18. Leikensohn, A., & Madurkar, R. (2026, April 28). Innovations in bladder cancer therapy: Implications for managed care. OncoHealth. https://oncohealth.us/innovations-in-bladder-cancer-therapy-implications-for-managed-care/   
   19. Powles, T., Catto, J. W. F., Galsky, M. D., Al-Ahmadie, H., Meeks, J. J., Nishiyama, H., Vu, T. Q., Antonuzzo, L., Wiechno, P., Atduev, V., Kann, A. G., Kim, T.-H., Suárez, C., Chang, C.-H., Roghmann, F., Özgüroğlu, M., Eigl, B. J., Oliveira, N., Buchler, T., … & van der Heijden, M. S. (2024). Perioperative durvalumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable bladder cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 391(19), 1773–1786. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2408154   
   20. Vulsteke, C., Adra, N., Danchaivijitr, P., Sabadash, M., Rodriguez-Vida, A., Zhang, Z., Atduev, V., Göger, Y. E., Rausch, S., Kang, S.-H., Loriot, Y., Bedke, J., Galsky, M. D., O’Donnell, P. H., von Amsberg, G., Alimohamed, N., Sulimka, G., Gupta, S., Paramonov, V., … & Ullén, A. (2026). Perioperative enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in bladder cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 394(13), 1257–1269. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2511674    
   21. Bajorin, D. F., Witjes, J. A., Gschwend, J. E., Schenker, M., Valderrama, B. P., Tomita, Y., Bamias, A., Lebret, T., Shariat, S. F., Park, S. H., Ye, D., Agerbaek, M., Enting, D., McDermott, R., Gajate, P., Peer, A., Milowsky, M. I., Nosov, A., Neif Antonio, J., Jr., … & Galsky, M. D. (2021). Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The New England Journal of Medicine, 384(22), 2102–2114. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034442   
   22. Galsky, M. D., Valderrama, B. P., Maruzzo, M., Font, A., Ciuleanu, T., Chatzkel, J., Koie, T., Hoimes, C. J., Puente, J., Zakharia, Y., Rosenbaum, E., Boehm, K., Loriot, Y., Bedke, J., Powles, T. B., Necchi, A., Wiechno, P., Álvarez-Fernández, C., Kim, T.-H., … & Gómez de Liaño, A. (2026). Enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in cisplatin-eligible bladder cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 395(4), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2601486   
   23. Sridhar, S. S. (2026). A new standard in muscle-invasive bladder cancer—The end of the cisplatin era? The New England Journal of Medicine, 395(4), 402–404. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2605872   
   24. Powles, T., Kann, A. G., Castellano, D., Gross-Goupil, M., Nishiyama, H., Bracarda, S., Bjerggaard Jensen, J., Makaroff, L., Jiang, S., Ku, J. H., Park, S. H., Reig Torras, O., Ye, D., Maruzzo, M., Necchi, A., Morales-Barrera, R., Giunta, E. F., Lee, J. L., Tortora, G., … & Gschwend, J. E. (2025). ctDNA-guided adjuvant atezolizumab in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 393(24), 2395–2408. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2511885