Sequential Bacillus Calmette-guerin Plus Chemotherapy for Prevention of Post-operative Recurrence of Superficial Bladder Cancer:A Systematic Review

WANG Yu,WEI Qiang,ZENG Hao,LUO Rui,LIU Hua-yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2007.09.008
2007-01-01
Abstract:Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and treatment-induced side effects of intravesically administered bacillus calmette-guerin (BCG) plus chemotherapy following TURB-t in patients with superficial bladder cancer compared with BCG alone. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed (1950 to December 2006), Ovid (1966 to December 2006), EMbase (1984 to December 2006), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006), CBM (1978 to 2006) and VIP (1989 to 2006). We also handsearched relevant published and unpublished reports as well as their references. The quality of included trials was evaluated by two reviewers. We used The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.9 software for statistical analysis. Results Four studies involving 681 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed that ,in patients with Ta and T1 bladder cancer ,there was a significant difference in the recurrence rate between intravesically administered BCG plus chemotherapy and BCG alone (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.53to 0.90). In patients with Tis bladder cancer, no significant difference was found in the recurrence rate between the two groups (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.54). In patients with Ta, T1 and Tis bladder cancer ,no statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of side effects (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.03). Conclusion Compared with BCG alone, intravesically administered BCG plus chemotherapy in patients with Ta and T1 superficial bladder cancer can reduce the incidence of tumor recurrence more effectively. For patients with Tis bladder cancer , the two therapeutic regimens do not differ in the incidence of tumor recurrence. The two regimens have similar side effects. There is a moderate possibility of selection bias ,performance bias and publication bias in the small number of included studies ,which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results. Better evidence from more high-quality double-blind randomized controlled trials is needed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?