RESUMEN
Background: We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the two muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treatment modalities in terms of cancer-specific survival (CSS) and other outcome indicators. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. The search was conducted using various academic databases including Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane database, EMBASE, Chinese biomedical literature database, Wan fang databases, and China National Knowledge Internet databases between 1966 and December 2023. This review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) No. (CRD42023398977). Result: This study included a total of 54,816 patients diagnosed with bladder cancer from 14 studies, of which 6,228 patients were assigned to the trimodal therapy (TMT) group and 48,588 patients were assigned to the radical cystectomy (RC) group. Based on the results, the RC group exhibited a higher rate of survival than the TMT group [pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.18-1.28, Z = 1.46, P < 0.001]. In terms of CSS, patients in the RC group had a longer CSS compared with those in the TMT group (pooled HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.29-1.67, Z = 5.893, P < 0.001). Compared with RC, TMT is significantly associated with an increased risk of both types of mortality (pooled HR: 1.30, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that RC treatment may be associated with improved overall survival. Moreover, it was observed that cancer-specific survival was significantly prolonged among patients in the RC group as opposed to those who received TMT. In addition, it was shown that patients who received TMT exhibited a higher risk of all-cause mortality when compared with those who underwent RC.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, affecting our day-to-day lives. Physical distancing and lockdown made significant obstacles to populations, particularly healthcare systems. Most healthcare workers were reallocated to COVID-19 facilities. Noncommunicable disease patients were given low priority and are at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection, which disrupted the treatment and disease management of these patients. This review aimed to assess the effect of COVID-19 on different types of noncommunicable diseases and the severity it may cause to patients. Methods: We have conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19 and noncommunicable diseases from December 2019 until January 2022. The search was done in PubMed and Cochrane for relevant articles using variety of searching terms. Data for study variables were extracted. At the end of the selection process, 46 papers were selected for inclusion in the literature review. Result: The result from this review found that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the efficiency of the patient's treatment indirectly by either delaying or canceling sessions, which solidified the need to rely more on telemedicine, virtual visits, and in-home visits to improve patient education and minimize the risk of exposure to the patients. The major and most common types of noncommunicable diseases are known to be related to the severe outcomes of COVID-19 infection. It is strongly recommended to prioritize these patients for vaccinations against COVID-19 to provide them with the protection that will neutralize the risk imposed by their comorbidities. Conclusion: We recommend conducting more studies with larger population samples to further understand the role of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in this pandemic. However, this pandemic has also affected the efficiency of NCDs treatment indirectly by delaying or canceling sessions and others.