3.9 Article

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer: a nationwide investigation on survival

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 206-212

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2019.1624611

关键词

Muscle invasive bladder cancer; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; radical cystectomy; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and its effect on survival patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, these RCTs have limited external validity and generalisability and, therefore, the current study aims to use real world evidence in the form of observational data to identify the effect that NAC may have on survival, compared to the use of radical cystectomy (RC) alone. Materials and methods: The study cohort (consisting of 944 patients) was selected as a target trial from the Bladder Cancer Data Base Sweden (BladderBaSe). This study calculated 5-year survival and risk of bladder cancer (BC)-specific and overall death by Cox proportional hazard models for the study cohort and a propensity score (PS) matched cohort. Results: Those who had received NAC had higher 5-year survival proportions and decreased risk of both overall and BC specific death (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52-0.97 and HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48-0.94), respectively, as compared to patients who did not receive NAC. The PS matched cohort showed similar estimates, but with larger statistical uncertainty (Overall death: HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.53-1.09 and BC-specific death: HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.50-1.07). Conclusion: Results from the current observational study found similar point estimates for 5-year survival and of relative risks as previous studies. However, the results based on real world evidence had larger statistical variability, resulting in a non-statistically significant effect of NAC on survival. Future studies with detailed validated data can be used to further investigate the effect of NAC in narrower patient groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据