Novel therapeutic regimens in previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (muC) has historically had few effective therapeutic options. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), were introduced as therapeutic options for cisplatin-ineligible patients, however, direct head-to-head trials comparing these treatments are lacking. To address this gap, this study employs a Bayesian framework to indirectly compare the performance of ICIs as first-line agents for muC. A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating different ICI for mUC. Data was inputted into Review Manager 5.4 for pairwise meta-analysis. Data was then used to build a network in R Studio. These networks were used to model 200,000 Markov Chains via MonteCarlo sampling. The results are expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Six studies with 5,449 patients were included, 3,255 received ICI monotherapy or combination. Moreover, a total of 3,006 had PD-L1 positive tumors and 2,362 were PD-L1 negative. Median overall survival (OS) ranged from 12.1 to 31.5 months across the studies, with the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab demonstrating the most substantial reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.47 [95% CrI: 0.38, 0.58]), followed by avelumab monotherapy (HR 0.69 [95% CrI: 0.56, 0.86]). The limitations of this network meta-analysis include variability in study follow-up duration, lack of standardized methods for assessing PD-L1 positivity, and potential bias introduced by control arms with poorer survival outcomes across included trials. The enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab combination significantly improved survival and response rates. Avelumab showed notable single-agent activity. These findings provide a valuable framework to guide clinical decision-making and highlight priority areas for future research, including biomarker refinement and novel combination strategies to enhance antitumor immunity in this challenging malignancy.

Comparison of peritoneal interposition flaps and sealants for prevention of lymphocele after robotic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Lymphocele is one of the most common complications after radical prostatectomy. Multiple authors have proposed the use of vessel sealants or peritoneal interposition techniques as preventive interventions. This study aimed to aggregate and analyze the available literature on different interventions which seek to prevent lymphocele through a Bayesian Network. A systematic review was performed to identify prospective studies evaluating strategies for lymphocele prevention after robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy + pelvic lymph node dissection. Data was inputted into Review Manager 5.4 for pairwise meta-analysis. Data was then used to build a network in R Studio. These networks were used to model 200,000 Markov Chains via MonteCarlo sampling. The results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Meta-regression was used to determine coefficient of change and adjust for pelvic lymph node dissection extent. Ten studies providing data from 2211 patients were included. 1097 patients received an intervention and 1114 patients served as controls. Interposition with fenestration had the lowest risk of developing a lymphocele (OR 0.14 [0.04, 0.50], p = 0.003). All interventions, except sealants or patches, had significant decreased odds of lymphocele rates. Meta-analysis of all the included studies showed a decreased risk of developing a lymphocele (OR 0.42 [0.33, 0.53], p < 0.00001) for the intervention group. Perivesical fixation and interposition with fenestration appear to be effective interventions for reducing the overall incidence of lymphocele.

Oncologic Outcome of the Extent of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Network Analysis.

CONTEXT: Some authors propose extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) to enhance diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, recent evidence found no difference in biochemical recurrence (BCR). OBJECTIVE: To stratify and analyze available evidence on ePLND and its impact on BCR in patients with localized prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies up to November 2023. We identified original articles that presented statistical comparisons through Cox regressions reported as hazard ratio (HR) or survival curve data reported as Kaplan-Meier curve differences in BCR in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and stratified by the extent of lymph node dissection for localized prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 12 studies, with two being randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs showed no benefit of ePLND with an HR of 1.03 ([0.92, 1.14], p = 0.61). A combined analysis with the ten retrospective studies revealed a notable reduction in BCR with an HR of 0.68 ([0.52, 0.88], p = 0.003). A subgroup analysis based on the extent of dissection demonstrated that studies focusing on the more conservative extended template of dissection did not show significant BCR benefit (HR 0.97 [0.72, 1.32], p = 0.86). In contrast, dissections that expanded the anatomical extent showed decreased BCR (HR 0.56 [0.41, 0.75], p < 0.0001). A Bayesian network analysis highlights significant differences in BCR reduction between different dissection approaches, indicating the potential benefits of specific dissection templates. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature on the extent of pelvic lymph node dissection needs to be improved in quality and varying definitions of the ePLND template. Dissection of the common iliac nodes may be beneficial. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is a potential benefit in removing more lymph nodes during radical prostatectomy. However, more research is needed to determine whether this strategy benefits certain patient groups.