A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Chemoablation for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The ablative effect of intravesical therapy is known for decades. However, the clinical feasibility and efficacy of chemoablation for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) have not become accepted. OBJECTIVE: To assess the treatment outcomes of chemoablation for NMIBC and to compare its safety with that of the standard treatment, transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) followed by intravesical therapy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were queried in July 2022 for studies investigating the complete response (CR) rates and adverse events in NMIBC patients treated with chemoablation using mitomycin C (MMC), gemcitabine, epirubicin, or bacillus Calmette-Guérin. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 23 studies comprising 1199 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. Among these studies, 20 assessed the efficacy of chemoablation and three compared the treatment outcomes of MMC chemoablation versus standard treatment. Among patients treated with weekly administration of any agent, the pooled CR rates at initial assessment were 50.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.9-55.9) for the marker lesion and 47.5% (95% CI: 36.5-58.7) for well-selected NMIBC (ie, small tumors and/or a small number of tumors). Novel regimens for chemoablation such as MMC-gel (70.6%, 95% CI: 60.1-79.3) and an intensive MMC regimen (64.7%, 95% CI: 56.2-72.3) provided better CR rates in well-selected NMIBC patients. Comparable CR rates were noted irrespective of tumor multiplicity, whereas tumor size <5 mm was associated with a higher CR rate than tumor size ≥5 mm (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.79). The novel intensive MMC regimen resulted in lower rates of dysuria and urinary frequency than standard treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of long-term outcomes, chemoablation appears to be a promising treatment option for well-selected NMIBC patients and can potentially help avoid unnecessary TURBT, specifically in some elderly patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC. Further well-designed studies with larger cohorts are necessary to address the differential tolerability and long-term anticancer efficacy of this resurging approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: Bladder instillation therapy has a potential ablative effect for well-selected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. This can lead to the omission of an unnecessary surgical treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".