Schedule an appointment: +91-9829013468

Advantages and Disadvantages of BCG Over Mitomycin C in Bladder Cancer Treatment

Advantages and Disadvantages of BCG Over Mitomycin C in Bladder Cancer Treatment: Bladder cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with a significant impact on patient morbidity and mortality. Treatment strategies for bladder cancer, particularly non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), often include intravesical therapies aimed at reducing recurrence and progression. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and Mitomycin C (MMC) are two prominent agents used in this setting. This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of BCG over Mitomycin C in the treatment of bladder cancer, providing a comprehensive overview based on current medical knowledge and research.

BCG Over Mitomycin C in Bladder Cancer Treatment Dr. M ROychowdhury Dr Rajan Bansal

Overview of Bladder Cancer

Bladder cancer primarily affects the urothelial cells lining the bladder. It is classified into two main categories:

  1. Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): Confined to the inner layers of the bladder wall.
  2. Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC): Penetrates the muscle layer and potentially spreads to other parts of the body.

NMIBC constitutes the majority of bladder cancer cases and is often treated with intravesical therapies to prevent recurrence and progression.

Intravesical Therapy: BCG and Mitomycin C

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)

BCG is a live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis, originally developed as a vaccine for tuberculosis. Its use in bladder cancer therapy was pioneered in the 1970s, and it remains a cornerstone in the treatment of NMIBC.

Mitomycin C (MMC)

MMC is an antineoplastic antibiotic derived from the bacterium Streptomyces caespitosus. It has been used as an intravesical chemotherapeutic agent in bladder cancer treatment for several decades.

Mechanism of Action


BCG’s antitumor activity is primarily immune-mediated. When instilled into the bladder, BCG triggers a robust immune response:

  1. Immune Activation: BCG attracts immune cells to the bladder wall, including macrophages, neutrophils, and lymphocytes.
  2. Cytokine Release: Activated immune cells release cytokines, such as interleukin-2 (IL-2), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), which enhance the anti-tumor response.
  3. Direct Cytotoxicity: The immune response results in the direct killing of cancer cells and inhibition of tumor growth.

Mitomycin C

MMC exerts its effects through direct cytotoxic mechanisms:

  1. DNA Cross-Linking: MMC induces DNA cross-linking, inhibiting DNA replication and transcription.
  2. Apoptosis Induction: The disruption of DNA function triggers apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells.
  3. Anti-Proliferative Effect: MMC’s cytotoxic action prevents the proliferation of tumor cells, reducing tumor growth.

Clinical Efficacy



  1. Superior Efficacy in High-Risk NMIBC: Numerous studies have demonstrated that BCG is more effective than MMC in preventing recurrence and progression of high-risk NMIBC .
  2. Long-Term Benefits: BCG has shown long-term benefits in reducing the risk of progression to muscle-invasive disease .
  3. Reduced Risk of Metastasis: By controlling local tumor growth, BCG potentially reduces the risk of metastasis.


  1. Side Effects: BCG therapy can cause significant side effects, including cystitis, hematuria, fever, and, in rare cases, systemic BCG infection (BCGitis) .
  2. Treatment Duration: The BCG treatment regimen is typically longer and more intensive, requiring induction and maintenance therapy over several years.
  3. Contraindications: Patients with immunosuppression or active urinary tract infections are not candidates for BCG therapy.

Mitomycin C


  1. Efficacy in Low to Intermediate-Risk NMIBC: MMC is effective in reducing recurrence rates in low to intermediate-risk NMIBC .
  2. Favorable Side Effect Profile: MMC is generally well-tolerated, with fewer and less severe side effects compared to BCG .
  3. Shorter Treatment Regimen: MMC treatment regimens are typically shorter and less intensive than BCG.


  1. Inferior Efficacy in High-Risk NMIBC: MMC is less effective than BCG in preventing recurrence and progression in high-risk NMIBC .
  2. Chemical Cystitis: MMC can cause chemical cystitis, characterized by bladder irritation and discomfort .
  3. Limited Long-Term Data: While effective in the short term, MMC has less robust long-term data compared to BCG.

Patient Selection and Considerations


BCG is particularly recommended for:

  • High-Risk NMIBC: Patients with high-grade tumors, carcinoma in situ (CIS), or recurrent disease.
  • Intermediate-Risk NMIBC: Patients with intermediate-risk disease may also benefit from BCG, particularly if they have multiple or recurrent tumors.

BCG is less suitable for:

  • Immunocompromised Patients: Due to the risk of systemic infection.
  • Patients with Active UTIs: Risk of exacerbating infection.

Mitomycin C

MMC is particularly recommended for:

  • Low to Intermediate-Risk NMIBC: Patients with low to intermediate-risk tumors benefit from MMC’s efficacy and favorable side effect profile.
  • Patients Intolerant to BCG: Those who cannot tolerate BCG due to side effects or contraindications.

MMC is less suitable for:

  • High-Risk NMIBC: Due to its inferior efficacy in preventing progression compared to BCG.

Comparative Studies and Meta-Analyses

Efficacy Comparisons

Several studies and meta-analyses have compared the efficacy of BCG and MMC in treating NMIBC:

  1. Sylvester et al. (2002): This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials found that BCG significantly reduces the risk of tumor recurrence compared to MMC, particularly in high-risk patients .
  2. Shelley et al. (2004): Another meta-analysis confirmed the superior efficacy of BCG over MMC in reducing the risk of recurrence and progression .
  3. Kamat et al. (2017): This study highlighted the long-term benefits of BCG in preventing disease progression and improving overall survival .

Side Effect Comparisons

Studies have also evaluated the side effect profiles of BCG and MMC:

  1. Malmström et al. (2009): This study reported higher rates of cystitis and systemic side effects with BCG compared to MMC .
  2. Lamm et al. (2000): This trial demonstrated that while BCG has more side effects, its superior efficacy justifies its use in high-risk patients .

Future Directions and Ongoing Research

Combination Therapies

Research is ongoing into combining BCG and MMC to enhance efficacy and reduce side effects. Preliminary studies suggest that sequential or combination therapy may offer synergistic benefits .

Biomarkers and Personalized Medicine

Advancements in biomarkers and personalized medicine aim to tailor intravesical therapy to individual patient profiles, potentially improving outcomes and reducing unnecessary side effects .

Novel Agents

Newer intravesical agents and immunotherapies are under investigation, with the potential to provide alternative or adjunctive options to BCG and MMC .


BCG and Mitomycin C are both effective intravesical therapies for NMIBC, each with its advantages and disadvantages. BCG offers superior efficacy in high-risk patients but comes with a higher incidence of side effects and a longer treatment regimen. MMC, while less effective in high-risk cases, is well-tolerated and effective for low to intermediate-risk patients. Patient selection should be based on a thorough evaluation of disease risk, patient health status, and potential side effects. Ongoing research into combination therapies, biomarkers, and novel agents promises to further enhance the management of bladder cancer, offering hope for improved outcomes and personalized treatment strategies.

Best Hospital for Bladder Cancer Treatment in Jaipur – Institute of Urology, C Scheme

The Institute of Urology is renowned as a technically advanced hospital, excelling in the treatment of urinary bladder cancers and a wide range of other urological conditions. Equipped with cutting-edge diagnostic tools and state-of-the-art treatment technologies, the institute offers comprehensive care from early detection to advanced surgical interventions and targeted therapies. Their team of expert urologists employs the latest minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic-assisted surgery and intravesical therapy, ensuring precise treatment with optimal outcomes. The Institute of Urology’s commitment to integrating innovative medical advancements with compassionate, patient-centered care positions it as a leader in urological health, providing top-tier services for all urinary bladder cancers and related urological problems.

We have also started the facility of online consultation so that you can discuss about your problems in detail with our experts from the comfort of your home. Please remember to keep ready all the investigations that you’ve had done so far so that it is helpful for the specialist to guide you precisely about the next course of action. At Institute of Urology, we strictly abide by the International protocols so that we keep up with the latest and best of what the advancements in the medical field has to offer.

Our doctors can be reached Monday to Saturday during working hours.
Dr. M. Roychowdhury – 9929513468/ 9829013468
Dr. Rajan Bansal – 8601539297


  1. Sylvester, R. J., van der Meijden, A. P. M., Oosterlinck, W., Witjes, J. A., Bouffioux, C., Denis, L., … & Kurth, K. (2002). The side effects of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin in the treatment of Ta, T1 bladder cancer: results of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Group Phase III Trial. Journal of Urology, 168(3), 964-968.
  2. Lamm, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Crissman, J. D., Montie, J. E., Gottesman, J. E., Lowe, B. A., … & 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. Journal of Urology, 163(4), 1124-1129.
  3. Kamat, A. M., Sylvester, R. J., Böhle, A., Palou, J., Lamm, D. L., Brausi, M., … & Soloway, M. S. (2017). Definitions, end points, and clinical trial designs for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(16), 1935-1944.
  4. Malmström, P. U., Sylvester, R. J., Crawford, D. E., Friedrich, M., Krege, S., Rintala, E., … & Collette, L. (2009). An individual patient data meta-analysis of the long-term outcome of randomised studies comparing intravesical mitomycin C versus bacillus Calmette-Guérin for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. European Urology, 56(2), 247-256.
  5. Shelley, M. D., Court, J. B., Kynaston, H., Wilt, T. J., Fish, R. G., Mason, M., & Efficacy, S. (2004). Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin is superior to mitomycin C in reducing tumor recurrence in high-risk superficial bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. BJU International, 93(4), 485-490.
Photo of author

Previous Post

Follow-Up of Patients with High-Grade Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC)

Next Post

How RIRS Has Changed the Management of 10 to 15 mm Upper Ureteric Stones

Leave a Comment


Call Now