We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and pooled meta-analysis to determine the preferred regimen.
Urology 2024 April 28
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) versus dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) before radical cystectomy improves overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and pathologic complete response (pCR) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) with secondary analyses of pathological downstaging and toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified studies of patients with MIBC treated with neoadjuvant GC compared to ddMVAC from PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Random-effect models for pooled log-transformed hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and pooled odds ratios (OR) for pCR and downstaging were developed using the generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively.
RESULTS: Ten studies were identified (4 OS, 2 PFS, and 6 pCR clinical endpoints). Neoadjuvant ddMVAC improved OS (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.56; 0.90]), PFS (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.60; 0.97]), and pathological downstaging (OR 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.01; 1.78]) as compared to GC. There was no significant difference between regimens for pCR rates (odds ratio 1.38 [95% confidence interval 0.90; 2.12]). Treatment toxicity was greater with ddMVAC. Limitations result from differences in number of ddMVAC cycles and patient selection between studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ddMVAC is associated with improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Although rates of pathological complete response were not significantly different, pathological downstaging correlated with overall survival. Dose-dense MVAC should be preferred over gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who can tolerate its greater toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified studies of patients with MIBC treated with neoadjuvant GC compared to ddMVAC from PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Random-effect models for pooled log-transformed hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and pooled odds ratios (OR) for pCR and downstaging were developed using the generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively.
RESULTS: Ten studies were identified (4 OS, 2 PFS, and 6 pCR clinical endpoints). Neoadjuvant ddMVAC improved OS (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.56; 0.90]), PFS (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.60; 0.97]), and pathological downstaging (OR 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.01; 1.78]) as compared to GC. There was no significant difference between regimens for pCR rates (odds ratio 1.38 [95% confidence interval 0.90; 2.12]). Treatment toxicity was greater with ddMVAC. Limitations result from differences in number of ddMVAC cycles and patient selection between studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ddMVAC is associated with improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Although rates of pathological complete response were not significantly different, pathological downstaging correlated with overall survival. Dose-dense MVAC should be preferred over gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who can tolerate its greater toxicity.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app