Background: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. Methods: Patients with NMIBCs underwent adjuvant induction ± maintenance schedule of intravesical immunotherapy with either BCG TICE or RIVM at two high-volume tertiary institutions. Only BCG-naïve patients and those treated with the same strain over the course of follow-up were included. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching (PSM) between the two cohorts was utilized to adjust for baseline demographic and tumor characteristics imbalances. Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models according to high-risk NMIBC prognostic factors were implemented to address survival differences between the strains. Sub-group analysis modeling of the influence of routine secondary resection (re-TUR) in the setting of the sole maintenance adjuvant schedule for the two strains was further performed. Results: 852 Ta-T1 NMIBCs (n = 719, 84.4% on TICE; n = 133, 15.6% on RIVM) with a median of 53 (24–77) months of follow-up were reviewed. After PSM, no differences at 5-years RFS, PFS, and CSS at both Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were detected for the whole cohort. In the sub-group setting of full adherence to European/American Urology Guidelines (EAU/NCCN), BCG TICE demonstrated longer 5-years RFS compared to RIVM (68% vs. 43%, p = 0.008; HR: 0.45 95% CI 0.25–0.81). Conclusion: When routinely performing re-TUR followed by a maintenance BCG schedule, TICE was superior to RIVM for RFS outcomes. However, no significant differences were detected for PFS and CSS, respectively.

Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

PANDOLFO S;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. Methods: Patients with NMIBCs underwent adjuvant induction ± maintenance schedule of intravesical immunotherapy with either BCG TICE or RIVM at two high-volume tertiary institutions. Only BCG-naïve patients and those treated with the same strain over the course of follow-up were included. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching (PSM) between the two cohorts was utilized to adjust for baseline demographic and tumor characteristics imbalances. Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models according to high-risk NMIBC prognostic factors were implemented to address survival differences between the strains. Sub-group analysis modeling of the influence of routine secondary resection (re-TUR) in the setting of the sole maintenance adjuvant schedule for the two strains was further performed. Results: 852 Ta-T1 NMIBCs (n = 719, 84.4% on TICE; n = 133, 15.6% on RIVM) with a median of 53 (24–77) months of follow-up were reviewed. After PSM, no differences at 5-years RFS, PFS, and CSS at both Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were detected for the whole cohort. In the sub-group setting of full adherence to European/American Urology Guidelines (EAU/NCCN), BCG TICE demonstrated longer 5-years RFS compared to RIVM (68% vs. 43%, p = 0.008; HR: 0.45 95% CI 0.25–0.81). Conclusion: When routinely performing re-TUR followed by a maintenance BCG schedule, TICE was superior to RIVM for RFS outcomes. However, no significant differences were detected for PFS and CSS, respectively.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/221851
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact