Abstract:Background: Intravesical immunotherapy or chemotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer is a well established treatment for preventing or delaying tumour recurrence following tumour resection. However, up to 70% of patients may fail and new intravesical agents with improved effectiveness are needed. Gemcitabine is a relatively new anticancer drug that has shown activity against bladder cancer. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine in preventing tumour recurrence and progression in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Search methods: A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE to identify randomised trials of intravesical gemcitabine for the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The searches were from 1947 to May 2011. Other databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, SCOPUS, BNI, Biomed Central, Web of Science and BIOSIS. Handsearching of meeting proceedings, international guidelines and trial registries was also carried out. Selection criteria: The titles and abstracts of the combined electronic and handsearching were manually screened by three authors independently to determine if they met the inclusion criteria for this review. Studies were selected if they were randomised, controlled trials or quasi-randomised clinical trials that included intravesical gemcitabine in at least one arm of a comparative study. Data collection and analysis: Data extraction was carried out by three reviewers. The information retrieved included the author's details, the study design, the characteristics of the recruited patients, details of the interventions and data relating to the primary, and secondary outcome measures. Main results: Six relevant randomised trials were identified with the number of patients randomised in each trial varying from 30 to 341 (total 704). All trials compared gemcitabine to active controls and varied in the reporting of outcomes. One study compared a single post-operative instillation of intravesical gemcitabine with a saline placebo in 341 patients and found no significant difference in the rates of tumour recurrence (28% versus 39%, respectively) or recurrence-free survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to1.39, P = 0.77). The rate of progression to invasive disease was greater with gemcitabine (2.4% versus 0.8%). A further trial compared gemcitabine with intravesical mitomycin C and demonstrated that the rates of recurrence (28% versus 39%) and progression (11% versus 18%) were lower with gemcitabine but did not reach statistical significance. The global incidence of adverse events was significantly less with gemcitabine (38.8% versus 72.2%, P = 0.02).Three trials compared gemcitabine with intravesical BCG but a meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. In untreated patients at intermediate risk of recurrence (primary Ta-T1 no CIS) one trial showed that gemcitabine and BCG were similar with respective recurrence rates of 25% and 30% (P = 0.92) and overall progression equal (P = 1.0). Dysuria (12.5% versus 45%, P < 0.05) and frequency (10% versus 45%, P < 0.001) were significantly less with gemcitabine. In a second trial of high risk patients the recurrence rate was significantly greater with gemcitabine compared to BCG (53.1% and 28.1%, P = 0.04) and the time to recurrence significantly shorter with gemcitabine (25.5 versus 39.4 months, P = 0.042). Finally in a third trial of high risk patients who had failed previous intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine was associated with significantly fewer recurrences (52.5% versus 87.5%, P = 0.002) and a longer time to recurrence (3.9 versus 3.1 months, P = 0.9) compared to BCG. Progression rates were similar in both groups (33% versus 37.5%, P = 0.12) with no significant differences in grade 2 or 3 toxicities.The final trial was a marker lesion study which reported greater response rates when intravesical gemcitabine (2 g) was given as three bi-weekly doses (36%) or six weekly doses (40%) compared to a single dose (9%). Authors' conclusions: A single dose immediately following surgery is ineffective based on one study. Gemcitabine may be more active than mitomycin C with a lower toxicity profile. Compared to intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine had similar effects in intermediate risk patients, less effective in high risk patient and superior in BCG refractory patients. However, each randomised trial identified represents a different clinical setting in NMIBC and therefore the evidence base is limited. Consequently these data should be interpreted with caution until further corroborative evidence becomes available. The aim of intravesical therapy in NMIBC is to prevent tumour recurrence and progression and to avoid the morbidity associated with cystectomy. Intravesical gemcitabine is a promising drug that may add to the urologist's options in achieving this goal.

Combination intravesical chemotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) as first-line or rescue therapy: where do we stand now?

Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel Therapy for BCG-Naïve Patients: A Promising Approach to Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

Early experience with sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel for micropapillary variant non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Induction and maintenance of sequential intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel for intermediate and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with different dosage protocols

Real-world efficacy of adjuvant single-agent intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Comparison of Sequential Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel vs Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for the Treatment of Patients With High-Risk Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

GEMCITABINE AND DOCETAXEL INDUCTION ONLY VERSUS INDUCTION WITH MAINTENANCE IN LOW-RISK AND INTERMEDIATE-RISK NON-MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER

A phase II trial of intravesical chemoimmunotherapy with gemcitabine and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for patients with BCG-exposed, high-grade, non-muscle–invasive bladder cancer.

Experience with Sequential Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel as Salvage Therapy for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Intravesical gemcitabine therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): a systematic review

Comparisons of Intravesical Treatments with Mitomycin C, Gemcitabine, and Docetaxel for Recurrence and Progression of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparing efficacy and safety of in-house gemcitabine to mitomycin for bladder instillation in intermediate-risk NMIBC

Comparative Effectiveness of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin and Sequential Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel for Treatment-naïve Intermediate-risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

Adjuvant therapies for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: advances during BCG shortage

Quality of Life, Efficacy, and Safety of Sequential Intravesical Gemcitabine + Docetaxel versus BCG for Non-Muscle Invasive Urinary Bladder Cancer: A Pilot Study

[Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intravesical instillation with gemcitabine after first-line intravesical chemotherapy failure in the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer].

Sequential Endoluminal Gemcitabine and Cabazitaxel with Intravenous Pembrolizumab as a Bladder-Preserving Strategy for Docetaxel-Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma Following Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor

Abstract PR005: Final results from a Phase I trial of intravesical chemoimmunotherapy with gemcitabine and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for patients with BCG-exposed high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Contemporary Treatment of NMIBC—Is It Time to Move on from BCG?

Electromotive Drug Administration Chemotherapy with Mitomycin C Versus Bacillus Calmette-Guerin for the Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer