Hi,
I'm glad you're in that clinical trial, Sutent sounds promising.
My two cents worth is that if either of those urinary diversions work as advertised, then it really doesn't matter as an active lifestyle can be had with either an Indiana Pouch or a neobladder.
Though, Indiana pouches might be better suited for older patients or those with physical limitations.
Here's something that I would consider (if I was a woman). Because more women than men with neobladders end up hypercontinent (which means that a catheter must be used to remove urine from the neobladder), I wonder what women on this website think who:
1) have neobladders, and
2) have become hypercontinent
If they could turn back the clock and had the option, would they change their diversion to something other than a neobladder?
My guess is no, but just a thought.
I don't have the statistics handy, but VERY rough approximations of those who end up hypercontinent are maybe 10% of men and maybe 30% of women. Keep in mind that having to catherize is no big deal (and is easier for a woman than a man due to obvious anatomic reasons).
I am not hypercontinent and I'm very happy with my neobladder (it's nearly like peeing normally!). Though, if I was, as a guy, I 'think' I might (not sure here) prefer to have an Indiana Pouch. Why? Because inserting a catheter into a stoma (which is the opening through the skin where urine is removed) SEEMS more easier and faster than than inserting a catheter through a urethra.
There is no PERFECT solution, stomas and neobladders both have their pros and cons.
This is just a small thought, nothing to lose any sleep over - removing your cancerous bladder is key.
So maybe some women will respond here???