4.7 Review

Intravesical Chemotherapy after Radical Nephroureterectomy for Primary Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8071059

关键词

nephroureterectomy; upper tract urothelial carcinoma; bladder cancer; intravesical chemotherapy; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2016R1A2B4011623]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the prophylactic effect of intravesical chemotherapy. Furthermore, it aimed to compare the efficacy of regimens on the prevention of bladder recurrence, after nephroureterectomy, for upper tract urothelial carcinoma by systematic review and network meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to search for studies published before 22 December 2016 using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. All studies comparing nephroureterectomy alone with prophylactic intravesical chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy were included. The primary outcome was intravesical recurrence-free survival rate. In addition, we conducted indirect comparisons among regimens using network meta-analysis, as well as three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on multicenter setting, and one large retrospective study with a total of 532 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of bladder recurrence was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.38-0.76) in intravesical instillation patients. On network meta-analysis, pirarubicin was ranked the most effective regimen, while maintenance therapy of mitomycin C (MMC) with Ara-C and induction therapy of MMC were ranked as the second and third most effective regimens, respectively. Our study demonstrates that intravesical chemotherapy can prevent bladder recurrence in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma after nephroureterectomy. It also suggests that a single instillation of pirarubicin is the most efficacious intravesical regimen.

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

4.7
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