Investig Clin Urol.
2021 Nov;62(6):623-630. 10.4111/icu.20210265.
Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: An abridged Cochrane Review
- Affiliations
-
- 1Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea
- 2Department of Urology, Rechtsder Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- 3Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
- 4Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
- 5Department of Hematology-Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
- 6Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- 7Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff University Library Services, Cardiff, UK
- 8Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
- 9Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- 10Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- KMID: 2521813
- DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20210265
Abstract
- Purpose
To assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).
Materials and Methods
We performed a comprehensive literature search on 11 September 2020. We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes (time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events) and the secondary outcomes (time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events, and disease-specific quality of life). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
Results
We found seven studies with 1,222 participants. Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time, but may have a similar effect on progression and grade III to V adverse events compared to saline. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to mitomycin. We are uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to giving BCG again in recurrent high-risk NMIBC after BCG treatment.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than saline and mitomycin but we are uncertain about how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high-risk diseases who have previously failed BCG.
- Full Text Links
-
- Actions
-
Cited
- CITED
-
- Close
- Share
-
- Similar articles
-
- Optimal Management of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin–Refractory Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer in 2023
- Initial Experiences of Intravesical Gemcitabine Instillation Followed by Bacillus Calmette-Guerin(BCG) Therapy for Treating Intermediate or High Risk Patients with Superficial Bladder Cancer
- The Present and Future of Intravesical Therapy in Bladder Cancer
- Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer: Abridged summary of the Cochrane Review
- The effect of immediate neoadjuvant electromotive instillation of mitomycin C with Bacillus Calmette–Guérin versus BCG alone in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A randomized controlled trial
