Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
World J Urol. 2023 Aug;41(8):2185-2194. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04478-w. Epub 2023 Jun 22.
The present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the current different neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimes for bladder cancer patients to rank them.
We used the Bayesian approach in NMA of six different therapy regimens cisplatin, cisplatin/doxorubicin, (gemcitabine/cisplatin) GC, cisplatin/methotrexate, methotrexate, cisplatin, and vinblastine (MCV) and (MVAC) compared to locoregional treatment.
Fifteen studies comprised 4276 patients who met the eligibility criteria. Six different regimes were not significantly associated with a lower likelihood of overall mortality rate compared to local treatment alone. In progression-free survival (PFS) rates, cisplatin, GC, cisplatin/methotrexate, MCV and MVAC were not significantly associated with a higher likelihood of PFS rate compared to locoregional treatment alone. In local control outcome, MCV, MVAC, GC and cisplatin/methotrexate were not significantly associated with a higher likelihood of local control rate versus locoregional treatment alone. Nevertheless, based on the analyses of the treatment ranking according to SUCRA, it was highly likely that MVAC with high certainty of results appeared as the most effective approach in terms of mortality, PFS and local control rates. GC and cisplatin/doxorubicin with low certainty of results was found to be the best second options.
No significant differences were observed in mortality, progression-free survival and local control rates before and after adjusting the type of definitive treatment in any of the six study arms. However, MVAC was found to be the most effective regimen with high certainty, while cisplatin alone and cisplatin/methotrexate should not be recommended as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regime.
本系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较了当前用于膀胱癌患者的不同新辅助化疗(NAC)方案,以对它们进行排名。
我们使用贝叶斯方法对六种不同的治疗方案(顺铂、顺铂/多柔比星、(吉西他滨/顺铂)GC、顺铂/甲氨蝶呤、甲氨蝶呤、顺铂和长春碱(MCV)和(MVAC))与局部治疗进行 NMA。
15 项研究共纳入 4276 名符合入选标准的患者。与单独局部治疗相比,六种不同方案与较低的总死亡率发生率无显著相关性。在无进展生存期(PFS)率方面,与单独局部治疗相比,顺铂、GC、顺铂/甲氨蝶呤、MCV 和 MVAC 与较高的 PFS 率无显著相关性。在局部控制结果方面,MCV、MVAC、GC 和顺铂/甲氨蝶呤与单独局部治疗相比,局部控制率无显著相关性。然而,根据根据 SUCRA 的治疗排名分析,MVAC 具有高确定性的结果,似乎是死亡率、PFS 和局部控制率方面最有效的方法。GC 和顺铂/多柔比星的结果确定性较低,被认为是最佳的第二选择。
在调整任何 6 个研究臂中确定性治疗类型后,在死亡率、无进展生存期和局部控制率方面均未观察到显著差异。然而,MVAC 被发现是最有效的方案,具有高度确定性,而顺铂单独和顺铂/甲氨蝶呤不应该被推荐为新辅助化疗方案。