Differential prognosis and response of denovo vs. secondary muscle‐invasive bladder cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

14Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To evaluate oncological outcomes of primary versus secondary muscle‐invasive bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy. Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Hazard ratios for overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using survival data extracted from Kaplan‐ Meier curves. A total of 16 studies with 5270 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed similar 5‐year and 10‐year OS (HR 1, p = 0.96 and HR 1, p = 0.14) and CSS (HR 1.02, p = 0.85 and HR 0.99, p = 0.93) between primMIBC and secMIBC. Subgroup analyses according to starting point of follow-up and second‐look transurethral resection revealed similar results. Subgroup analyses of studies in which neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered demonstrated significantly worse 5‐year CSS (HR 1.5, p = 0.04) but not 10‐year CSS (HR 1.36, p = 0.13) in patients with secMIBC. Patients with secMIBC had significantly worse PFS at 5‐year (HR 1.41, p = 0.002) but not at 10‐year follow‐up (HR 1.25, p = 0.34). This review found comparable oncologic outcomes between primMIBC and secMIBC patients treated with RC regarding OS and CSS. Subgroup analysis showed worse 5‐year CSS but not 10‐year CSS for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the secMIBC group. Prospective clinical trials incorporating molecular markers, that allow precise risk stratification of secMIBC and further research uncovering underlying molecular and clinical drivers of the heterogeneous group of secMIBC is needed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pones, M., D’andrea, D., Mori, K., Abufraj, M., Moschini, M., Comperat, E., & Shariat, S. F. (2021, May 2). Differential prognosis and response of denovo vs. secondary muscle‐invasive bladder cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cancers. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13102496

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free