Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021 Aug 12;21(12):1-123. eCollection 2021.
Bladder cancer begins in the innermost lining of the bladder wall and, on histological examination, is classified as one of two types: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) is the standard treatment for people with NMIBC, but the high rate of cancer recurrence after first TURBT is a challenge that physicians and patients face. Tumours seen during follow-up may have been missed or incompletely resected during first TURBT. TURBT is conventionally performed using white light to see the tumours. However, small papillary or flat tumours may be missed with the use of white light alone. With the emergence of new technologies to improve visualization during TURBT, better diagnostic and patient outcomes may be expected. We conducted a health technology assessment of two enhanced visualization methods, both as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people with suspected NMIBC-hexaminolevulinate hydrochloride (HAL), a solution that is instilled into the bladder to make tumours fluoresce under blue-violet light, and narrow band imaging (NBI), a technology that filters light into wavelengths that can be absorbed by hemoglobin in the tumours, making them appear darker. Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the budget impact of publicly funding these new technologies to improve patient outcomes following first TURBT. The use of NBI in diagnostic cystoscopy was out of scope for this health technology assessment.
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence from inception to April 15, 2020. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of first TURBT with the use of HAL or NBI, both as an adjunct to white light, with the outcomes of first TURBT using white light alone, or studies that made such comparison between HAL and NBI. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses using a fixed effects model where head-to-head comparisons were available. In the absence of any published RCT for comparison between HAL and NBI, we indirectly compared the two technologies through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 15-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HAL and NBI as an adjunct to white light in people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Ontario.
In the clinical evidence review, we identified 8 RCTs that used HAL or NBI as an adjunct to white light during first TURBT. Pairwise meta-analysis of HAL studies showed that HAL-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light significantly reduces recurrence rate at 12 months compared with TURBT using white light alone (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.95) (GRADE: Moderate). Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly higher when HAL was used as an adjunct to white light than when white light was used alone (GRADE: Moderate). There was little to no difference in the tumour progression rate (GRADE: Moderate).Meta-analysis of NBI studies did not show a significant difference between NBI-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light and TURBT using white light alone in reducing the rate of recurrence at 12 months (risk ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19) (GRADE: Moderate). No evidence on the effect on recurrence-free survival or tumour progression rate was identified for NBI-guided TURBT. The indirect estimate from the network analysis showed a trend toward a lower rate of recurrence after HAL-guided TURBT than after NBI-guided TURBT but the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.11) (GRADE: Low). Studies showed that use of HAL or NBI during TURBT was generally safe.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of HAL-guided TURBT compared with NBI-guided TURBT, both as an adjunct to white light, is $12,618 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with TURBT using white light alone and using adjunct NBI, the probability of HAL-guided TURBT being cost-effective is 69.1% at a willingness-to-pay value of $50,000 per QALY gained and 74.6% at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained. The annual budget impact of publicly funding HAL-guided TURBT in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from an additional $0.6 million in year 1 to $2.5 million in year 5.
First TURBT guided by HAL as an adjunct to white light likely reduces the rate of recurrence at 12 months and increases 5-year recurrence-free survival when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. There is likely little to no difference in the tumour progression rate. First TURBT guided by NBI as an adjunct to white light likely results in little to no difference in the rate of recurrence at 12 months when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. Based on an indirect comparison, there may be little to no difference in cancer recurrence rate between HAL-guided and NBI-guided first TURBT. Use of HAL or NBI during first TURBT is generally safe. For people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, using HAL as an adjunct to white light is likely to be cost-effective compared with using white light alone or with using NBI as an adjunct to white light. We estimate that publicly funding HAL as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people in Ontario with suspected NMIBC would result in additional costs of between $0.6 million and $2.5 million per year over the next 5 years.
膀胱癌始于膀胱壁的最内层,在组织学检查中,分为两种类型:非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)或肌肉浸润性膀胱癌。经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(TURBT)是治疗 NMIBC 患者的标准治疗方法,但首次 TURBT 后癌症复发率高是医生和患者面临的挑战。在随访中看到的肿瘤可能在首次 TURBT 中被遗漏或不完全切除。TURBT 传统上使用白光来观察肿瘤。然而,单独使用白光可能会错过小的乳头状或扁平肿瘤。随着新技术的出现,以改善 TURBT 期间的可视化,更好的诊断和患者预后可能会预期。我们对两种增强可视化方法进行了健康技术评估,均作为疑似 NMIBC 患者首次 TURBT 的辅助手段-盐酸六氨基己酸(HAL),一种将肿瘤荧光素注入膀胱以在蓝紫光下使肿瘤荧光的溶液,以及窄带成像(NBI),一种将光过滤成肿瘤中血红蛋白可吸收的波长的技术,使它们显得更暗。我们的评估包括评估有效性、安全性、成本效益,以及为改善首次 TURBT 后患者预后而公开资助这些新技术的预算影响。NBI 在诊断性膀胱镜检查中的使用超出了本健康技术评估的范围。
我们对从开始到 2020 年 4 月 15 日的临床证据进行了系统的文献搜索。我们搜索了比较首次 TURBT 时使用 HAL 或 NBI 作为白光辅助与单独使用白光的结果的随机对照试验(RCT),或者将这两种技术与 HAL 进行比较的研究。我们使用固定效应模型对有头对头比较的研究进行了成对荟萃分析。由于没有发表的 RCT 可用于比较 HAL 和 NBI,我们通过间接治疗比较(ITC)分析间接比较这两种技术。我们使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚工具评估了每项纳入研究的风险偏倚。我们根据推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献搜索,并从公共支付者的角度进行了 15 年时间跨度的成本效用分析。我们还分析了在安大略省为疑似非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌患者首次 TURBT 时,公开资助 HAL 和 NBI 作为白光辅助的预算影响。
在临床证据综述中,我们确定了 8 项使用 HAL 或 NBI 作为白光辅助进行首次 TURBT 的 RCT。HAL 研究的成对荟萃分析显示,与单独使用白光相比,HAL 引导的 TURBT 作为白光辅助可显著降低 12 个月时的复发率(风险比 0.70,95%置信区间[CI]0.51-0.95)(GRADE:中度)。使用 HAL 作为白光辅助时,五年无复发生存率显著高于单独使用白光时(GRADE:中度)。肿瘤进展率差异很小(GRADE:中度)。NBI 研究的荟萃分析并未显示 NBI 引导的 TURBT 作为白光辅助与单独使用白光相比,在降低 12 个月时的复发率方面有显著差异(风险比 0.94,95%CI0.75-1.19)(GRADE:中度)。没有发现 NBI 引导的 TURBT 在无复发生存率或肿瘤进展率方面的效果证据。网络分析的间接估计表明,HAL 引导的 TURBT 后复发率低于 NBI 引导的 TURBT,但差异无统计学意义(风险比 0.76,95%CI0.51-1.11)(GRADE:低)。研究表明,在 TURBT 期间使用 HAL 或 NBI 通常是安全的。与 NBI 引导的 TURBT 相比,HAL 引导的 TURBT 的增量成本效益比为每获得 1 个质量调整生命年(QALY)增加 12618 加元。与单独使用白光和辅助使用 NBI 的 TURBT 相比,HAL 引导的 TURBT 在 50000 加元/QALY 获得的意愿支付值下具有成本效益的概率为 69.1%,在 100000 加元/QALY 获得的意愿支付值下具有成本效益的概率为 74.6%。在未来 5 年内,安大略省公开资助 HAL 引导的 TURBT 的年度预算影响范围从第 1 年的额外 600 万加元到第 5 年的 2500 万加元。
与单独使用白光相比,HAL 作为白光辅助的首次 TURBT 可能降低 12 个月时的复发率,并增加 5 年无复发生存率。肿瘤进展率可能差异很小。与单独使用白光相比,NBI 作为白光辅助的首次 TURBT 可能导致 12 个月时的复发率差异很小。基于间接比较,HAL 引导和 NBI 引导的首次 TURBT 之间的癌症复发率可能差异很小。在首次 TURBT 期间使用 HAL 或 NBI 通常是安全的。对于疑似非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌的患者,与单独使用白光相比,使用 HAL 作为白光辅助可能具有成本效益。我们估计,在安大略省为疑似 NMIBC 患者公开资助 HAL 作为白光辅助来指导首次 TURBT 将导致每年额外增加 600 万至 2500 万加元的成本。