Health professional's implicit bias of adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite efforts to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, higher morbidity and mortality rates for people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) persist. People with lower SES are said to receive worse care and have worse outcomes compared with those with higher SES, in part due to bias and prejudice. Implicit biases adversely affect professional patient relationships and influence healthcare-related decision-making. A better understanding of the relationship between SES and healthcare-related decision-making is therefore essential to address socioeconomic inequalities in health. AIM: To scope the reported impact of health professionals bias about SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care of adults with lower SES in wider literature. METHODS: This scoping review will use Joanna Briggs Institute methods and will report its findings in line with Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols and Scoping Reviews guidelines. Data analysis, interpretation and reporting will be underpinned by the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice and Research recommendations) framework and input from a patient and public interest representative. A systematic search for literature will be conducted on various, pertinent databases to identify relevant literature such as peer-reviewed articles, editorials, discussion papers and empirical research papers. Additionally, other sources of relevant literature such as policies, guidelines, reports and conference abstracts, identified through key website searches will be considered for inclusion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The results will be disseminated through an open access peer-reviewed international journal, conference presentations and a plain language summary that will be shared with the public and other relevant stakeholders.

Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: An abridged Cochrane Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search on 11 September 2020. We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes (time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events) and the secondary outcomes (time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events, and disease-specific quality of life). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We found seven studies with 1,222 participants. Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time, but may have a similar effect on progression and grade III to V adverse events compared to saline. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to mitomycin. We are uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to giving BCG again in recurrent high-risk NMIBC after BCG treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than saline and mitomycin but we are uncertain about how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high-risk diseases who have previously failed BCG.

Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether people with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) benefit from intravesical gemcitabine compared to other agents in the primary or recurrent setting following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012. Since that time, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for NMIBC. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, trial registries, and conference proceedings to 11 September 2020, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events determined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0), and the secondary outcomes: time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events determined by the CTCAE v5.0 and disease-specific quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies with 1222 participants with NMIBC across five comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the three most clinically relevant comparisons. 1. Gemcitabine versus saline: based on two years' to four years' follow-up, gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to saline (39% versus 47% recurrence rate, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 1.09; studies = 2, participants = 734; I2 = 49%; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect.  Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the risk of progression over time compared to saline (4.6% versus 4.8% progression rate, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.71; studies = 2, participants = 654; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence).  Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to saline (5.9% versus 4.7% adverse events rate, risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.75; studies = 2, participants = 668; I2 = 24%; low-certainty evidence).  2. Gemcitabine versus mitomycin: based on three years' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 109), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to mitomycin (17% versus 40% recurrence rate, HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence). Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of progression over time compared to mitomycin (11% versus  18% progression rate, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect.  We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; very low-certainty evidence). The analysis was only based on recurrent NMIBC. 3. Gemcitabine versus Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for recurrent (one-course BCG failure) high-risk NMIBC: based on 6 months' to 22 months' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 80), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence compared to BCG (41% versus 97% recurrence rate, HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; low-certainty evidence) and progression over time (16% versus 33% progression rate, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to BCG (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.66; very low-certainty evidence).  In addition, the review provides information on  the comparison of gemcitabine versus BCG and gemcitabine versus one-third dose BCG.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a more favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than mitomycin but we are very uncertain as to how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high risk disease who have previously failed BCG. The underlying low- to very low-certainty evidence indicates that our confidence in these results is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these findings; therefore, better quality studies are needed.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Impact of deviations in target volume delineation - Time for a new RTQA approach?

The international radiotherapy community has recognised that non-adherence to RT protocols can influence trial endpoints. However this conclusion is based on studies predominantly assessing the impact of deviations in dosimetric or treatment delivery protocol parameters rather than target volume delineation (TVD). This review evaluates the assessment of TVD within Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) programmes in clinical trials and the clinical impact of TVD protocol deviations. The implications for RTQA programmes are discussed. MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, OpenGrey, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Full-length articles and conference abstracts were included to avoid publication bias. 5864 abstracts were screened for relevance; 94 full-length articles were reviewed and 5 relevant trials identified. Various classification systems were used to assess protocol deviations; 'unacceptable' or 'major' deviations in TVD occurred in 2.9-13.4% of assessed RT plans (when reported). It was often not possible to establish deviation rates specifically related to TVD as these were frequently combined with other types of protocol deviations. Details on the nature of unacceptable deviations was also not routinely reported and difficulties in establishing a 'consensus' for appropriate TVD for on-trial patients highlighted. Results suggest that deviations in TVD were associated with poorer outcomes for overall survival, local control and treatment-related toxicity; however the data were heterogeneous. RTQA of TVD was retrospective and feedback on the quality of TVD to recruiting centres was not standard. In summary, few trials have published outcomes on the impact of assessing the quality of TVD in trials. We propose that a new approach is now required. Unacceptable TVD deviations must be clearly defined at the time of protocol development to minimise interobserver variation, thereby promoting consistency in RTQA feedback. Prospective TVD reviews should be implemented for trials involving novel or complex RT techniques to identify deviations that require modification prior to treatment delivery. Furthermore, the consistent reporting of RTQA programme outcomes, both within and across trial groups, is of paramount importance to accelerate the evidence-base for the best RTQA approach when assessing TVD and to enable the impact on clinical outcomes within RT trials to be assessed.

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical localised renal masses.

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these surgical approaches continues and it is important to identify and summarise high-quality studies to make surgical treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy for clinically localised renal cell carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, LILACS, Scopus, two trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 24 February 2017, together with reference lists; and contacted selected experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included a randomised controlled trial comparing partial and radical nephrectomy for participants with small renal masses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened all of the titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Next, two review authors independently assessed full-text reports, identified relevant studies, evaluated the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The update of the literature search was performed by two independent review authors. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one randomised controlled trial including 541 participants that compared partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.Based on low quality evidence, we found that time-to-death of any cause was decreased using partial nephrectomy (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18). This corresponds to 79 more deaths (5 more to 173 more) per 1000. Also based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in serious adverse events (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 22.34). Findings are consistent with 4 more surgery-related deaths (3 fewer to 78 more) per 1000.Based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in time-to-recurrence (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.24). This corresponds to 12 more recurrences (14 fewer to 70 more) per 1000. Due to the nature of reporting, we were unable to analyse overall rates for immediate and long-term adverse events. We found no evidence on haemodialysis or quality of life.Reasons for downgrading related to study limitations (lack of blinding, cross-over), imprecision and indirectness (a substantial proportion of patients were ultimately found not to have a malignant tumour). Based on the finding of a single trial, we were unable to conduct any subgroup or sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy may be associated with a decreased time-to-death of any cause. With regards to surgery-related mortality, cancer-specific survival and time-to-recurrence, partial nephrectomy appears to result in little to no difference.

The association between prostatitis and prostate cancer. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The main outcome of this review was the association between a history of clinical chronic prostatitis (NIH category II or III) and a histologically confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crude odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to analyze dichotomous data. For analysis of pooled data we adopted a random-effects model and the inverse variance weighing method. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating the I2 value. RESULTS: Out of 2794 screened records, we retrieved 16 full-text articles written in English, reporting the data of 15 case-control studies, involving 422.943 patients. Pooled analysis resulted in a significant crude odds ratio of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.43 to 2.35; P < 0.00001). The total set of data showed considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 91%). Both the Egger's test and the Begg's test for funnel plot asymmetry did not reach statistical significance. The 'trim and fill' method applied to the funnel plot imputed 3 missing studies and the resulting adjusted estimate of the odds ratio was 2.12 (95% CI: 1.38 to 3.22). According to GRADE criteria, the overall quality of the meta-analysis data is low, mainly due to the presence of bias, confounders and extreme effect size outliers. Five among the included studies reported data assessed in 8015 African-American subjects. Pooled analysis resulted in a non-significant crude odds ratio of 1.59 (95% CI: 0.71 to 3.57; P = 0.26), and considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 15 case-control studies shows that a history of clinical chronic prostatitis can significantly increase the odds for prostate cancer in the general population, whereas such association in African-American individuals remains uncertain.

Herbal medicines for urinary stone treatment. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical evidence on the efficacy of phytotherapy in the treatment of calculi in the urinary tract. METHODS: To be eligible, full-length articles should include the results of randomized controlled trials enrolling patients affected by urolithiasis, reporting any comparison between an experimental herbal agent versus placebo or any active comparator, aimed at preventing the formation or facilitating the dissolution of calculi in any portion of the urinary tract. Fifteen databases were searched for relevant references. The primary outcomes investigated were (i) the reduction of stone size and/or number and (ii) the urinary excretion rates of calcium, urate, or oxalate. The secondary outcome of the review was the adverse effects (AE) of treatment. Risk of bias (ROB) and quality of the evidence were assessed according to Cochrane and GRADE guidelines. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: 541 articles were retrieved and 16 studies were finally confirmed as eligible. Multiple Cochrane ROB tool items were rated as having high risk of bias in each analyzed trial report. Pooled analysis of continuous data could be performed for three different comparisons: (i) phytotherapy versus citrate as single agent (ii) phytotherapy versus placebo, (iii) preparation of Didymocarpus pedicellata (DP)--combined with other herbal agents--versus placebo. Results showed that citrate is superior to phytotherapy in significantly decreasing both the size of urinary stones (mean difference: phytotherapy, 0.42 mm higher; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.6; Z = 4.42, P < 0.0001; I2 = 30%) and the urinary excretion rate of urate (mean difference: 42.32 mg/24h higher, 95% CI: 19.44 to 65.19; Z = 3.63, P = 0.0003; I2 = 96%), assessed after 3 months on-therapy. No significant differences in the excretion rates of urinary calcium or oxalate were found. The DP preparation was superior to placebo in inducing total clearance (risk ratio: 6.19, 95% CI: 2.60 to 14.74; Z = 4.12, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and size reduction (mean difference: DP preparation, 4.93 mm lower; 95% CI: -9.18 to -0.67; Z = 2.27, P = 0.02; I2 = 99%) of renal and ureteral stones after 3 months of therapy. No significant differences in the inter-arm variation of excretion rates of urinary calcium or urate were found as result of the pooled phytotherapy-placebo comparison. Herbal remedies were in general devoid of side effects and in few cases citrate appeared to induce GI disturbances in a higher fraction of patients. Most reports did not provide inferential data concerning AE, and meta-analysis was not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Citrate is more effective than phytotherapy in decreasing the size of existing calculi in the urinary tract and in decreasing the urinary excretion rate of uric acid. A preparation containing Didymocarpus pedicellata combined with other herbal agents induces stone size reduction and clearance significantly better than placebo. Mayor limitations in the applicability of these results are the low quality of the evidence and the multiple sources of bias assessed in the studies included in the present review.

Efficacy and safety of second-line agents for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the efficacy and the safety of second-line agents targeting metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has progressed after docetaxel. Pooled-analysis was also performed, to assess the effectiveness of agents targeting the androgen axis via identical mechanisms of action (abiraterone acetate, orteronel). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included phase III randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with mCRPC progressing during or after first-line docetaxel treatment. Trials were identified by electronic database searching. The primary outcome of the review was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher). RESULTS: Ten articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. These articles reported the results of five clinical trials, enrolling in total 5047 patients. The experimental interventions tested in these studies were enzalutamide, ipilimumab, abiraterone acetate, orteronel and cabazitaxel. Compared to control cohorts (active drug-treated or placebo-treated), the significant overall survival advantages achieved were 4.8 months for enzalutamide (hazard ratio for death vs. placebo: 0.63; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.75, P < 0.0001), 4.6 months for abiraterone (hazard ratio for death vs. placebo: 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75, P < 0.0001) and 2.4 months for cabazitaxel (hazard ratio for death vs. mitoxantrone-prednisone: 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83, p < 0.0001). Pooled analysis of androgen synthesis inhibitors orteronel and abiraterone resulted in significantly increased overall and progression-free survival for anti-androgen agents, compared to placebo (hazard ratio for death: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87, P < 0.0001; hazard ratio for radiographic progression: 0.7, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.77, P < 0.00001). Androgen synthesis inhibitors induced significant increases in risk ratios for adverse effects linked to elevated mineralocorticoid secretion, compared to placebo (risk ratio for hypokalemia: 5.75, 95% CI 2.08 to 15.90; P = 0.0008; risk-ratio for hypertension: 2.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.17; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In docetaxel-pretreated patients enzalutamide, abiraterone-prednisone and cabazitaxel-prednisone can improve overall survival of patients, compared to placebo or to best of care at the time of study (mitoxantrone-prednisone). Agents targeting the androgen axis (enzalutamide, abiraterone, orteronel) significantly prolonged rPFS, compared to placebo. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate the benefit of combination or sequential administration of these agents. Large-scale studies are also necessary to evaluate the impact of relevant toxic effects observed in a limited number of patients (e.g., enzalutamide-induced seizures, orteronel-induced pancreatitis, and others).

Intravesical gemcitabine therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): a systematic review.

• Intravesical immunotherapy or chemotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer is a well-established treatment for preventing or delaying tumour recurrence after tumour resection. However, up to 70% of patients may fail and new intravesical agents with improved effectiveness are needed. Gemcitabine is a relatively new anticancer drug that has shown activity against bladder cancer. • To systematically review the literature on the effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). • MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, LILACS, SCOPUS, BNI, Biomed Central, Web of Science and BIOSIS were searched to identify trials of intravesical gemcitabine for the treatment of NMIBC. Also searched were meeting proceedings, international guidelines and trial registries. Data on authors, study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcome data relating to tumour recurrence, disease progression, survival and adverse events were extracted from relevant studies. • Six relevant randomised trials were identified with the number of patients randomised in each trial varying from 30 to 341 (total 704). All trials compared gemcitabine to active controls and varied in the reporting of outcomes. • The first was a marker lesion study which reported greater tumour response rates when intravesical gemcitabine (2 g) was given as three bi-weekly doses (36%) or six weekly doses (40%) compared with a single dose (9%). • One study compared a single postoperative instillation of intravesical gemcitabine with a saline placebo in 341 patients and found no significant difference in the rates of tumour recurrence (28% vs 39%, respectively) or recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.64-1.39, P= 0.77). The rate of progression to invasive disease was greater with gemcitabine (2.4% vs 0.8%). • A further trial compared gemcitabine with intravesical mitomycin C (MMC) and reported that the rates of recurrence (28% vs 39%) and progression (11% vs 18%) were lower with gemcitabine but did not reach statistical significance. The overall incidence of adverse events was significantly less with gemcitabine (38.8% vs 72.2%, P= 0.02). • Three trials compared gemcitabine with intravesical bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) but a meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. • In untreated patients at intermediate risk of recurrence (primary Ta-T1, no carcinoma in situ) one trial showed that gemcitabine and BCG were similar with respective recurrence rates of 25% and 30% (P= 0.92) and overall progression equal. Dysuria (12.5% vs 45%, P < 0.05) and frequency (10% vs 45%, P < 0.001) were significantly less with gemcitabine. • In a second trial of high-risk patients the recurrence rate was significantly greater with gemcitabine compared with BCG (53.1% vs 28.1%, P= 0.04%) and the time to recurrence significantly shorter with gemcitabine (25.5 vs 39.4 months, P= 0.042). • Finally, in a third trial of high-risk patients who had failed previous intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine was associated with significantly fewer recurrences (52.5% vs 87.5%, P= 0.002) and a longer time to recurrence (3.9 vs 3.1 months, P= 0.9) compared with BCG. Progression rates were similar in both groups (33% vs 37.5%, P= 0.12) with no significant differences in grade 2 or 3 toxicities. • The data from several observational studies confirm the pharmacology of gemcitabine as an intravesical agent whilst others report the activity of gemcitabine in terms of tumour recurrence. However, these studies are inherently biased and these data should be interpreted appropriately. • In conclusion a single study suggests that in NMIBC multiple doses of intravesical gemcitabine reduce tumour recurrences to a greater extent than a single dose. • In contrast, a single dose immediately after surgery is ineffective based on one study. Gemcitabine may be more active than MMC with a lower toxicity profile. • Compared with intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine had similar effects in intermediate-risk patients, less effective in high-risk patients and superior in BCG-refractory patients. However, each randomised trial identified represents a different clinical setting in NMIBC and therefore the evidence base is limited. Consequently these data should be interpreted with caution until further corroborative evidence becomes available. • Intravesical gemcitabine is a promising drug that may add to the urologist's options in treating patients with NMIBC.

Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravesical immunotherapy or chemotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer is a well established treatment for preventing or delaying tumour recurrence following tumour resection. However, up to 70% of patients may fail and new intravesical agents with improved effectiveness are needed. Gemcitabine is a relatively new anticancer drug that has shown activity against bladder cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine in preventing tumour recurrence and progression in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). SEARCH METHODS: A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE to identify randomised trials of intravesical gemcitabine for the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The searches were from 1947 to May 2011. Other databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, SCOPUS, BNI, Biomed Central, Web of Science and BIOSIS. Handsearching of meeting proceedings, international guidelines and trial registries was also carried out. SELECTION CRITERIA: The titles and abstracts of the combined electronic and handsearching were manually screened by three authors independently to determine if they met the inclusion criteria for this review. Studies were selected if they were randomised, controlled trials or quasi-randomised clinical trials that included intravesical gemcitabine in at least one arm of a comparative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was carried out by three reviewers. The information retrieved included the author's details, the study design, the characteristics of the recruited patients, details of the interventions and data relating to the primary, and secondary outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Six relevant randomised trials were identified with the number of patients randomised in each trial varying from 30 to 341 (total 704). All trials compared gemcitabine to active controls and varied in the reporting of outcomes. One study compared a single post-operative instillation of intravesical gemcitabine with a saline placebo in 341 patients and found no significant difference in the rates of tumour recurrence (28% versus 39%, respectively) or recurrence-free survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to1.39, P = 0.77). The rate of progression to invasive disease was greater with gemcitabine (2.4% versus 0.8%). A further trial compared gemcitabine with intravesical mitomycin C and demonstrated that the rates of recurrence (28% versus 39%) and progression (11% versus 18%) were lower with gemcitabine but did not reach statistical significance. The global incidence of adverse events was significantly less with gemcitabine (38.8% versus 72.2%, P = 0.02).Three trials compared gemcitabine with intravesical BCG but a meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. In untreated patients at intermediate risk of recurrence (primary Ta-T1 no CIS) one trial showed that gemcitabine and BCG were similar with respective recurrence rates of 25% and 30% (P = 0.92) and overall progression equal (P = 1.0). Dysuria (12.5% versus 45%, P < 0.05) and frequency (10% versus 45%, P < 0.001) were significantly less with gemcitabine. In a second trial of high risk patients the recurrence rate was significantly greater with gemcitabine compared to BCG (53.1% and 28.1%, P = 0.04) and the time to recurrence significantly shorter with gemcitabine (25.5 versus 39.4 months, P = 0.042). Finally in a third trial of high risk patients who had failed previous intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine was associated with significantly fewer recurrences (52.5% versus 87.5%, P = 0.002) and a longer time to recurrence (3.9 versus 3.1 months, P = 0.9) compared to BCG. Progression rates were similar in both groups (33% versus 37.5%, P = 0.12) with no significant differences in grade 2 or 3 toxicities.The final trial was a marker lesion study which reported greater response rates when intravesical gemcitabine (2 g) was given as three bi-weekly doses (36%) or six weekly doses (40%) compared to a single dose (9%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A single dose immediately following surgery is ineffective based on one study. Gemcitabine may be more active than mitomycin C with a lower toxicity profile. Compared to intravesical BCG therapy, gemcitabine had similar effects in intermediate risk patients, less effective in high risk patient and superior in BCG refractory patients. However, each randomised trial identified represents a different clinical setting in NMIBC and therefore the evidence base is limited. Consequently these data should be interpreted with caution until further corroborative evidence becomes available. The aim of intravesical therapy in NMIBC is to prevent tumour recurrence and progression and to avoid the morbidity associated with cystectomy. Intravesical gemcitabine is a promising drug that may add to the urologist's options in achieving this goal.

Gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic bladder carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To systematically review the literature on gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: • The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Onlinedatabase (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medicadatabase (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database(CIHNAL), the Cochrane database of randomized trials, the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe emCiências da Saúdedatabase (LILACS), and Web of Science were searched to identify trials of gemcitabine for metastatic bladder cancer. Also searched were international guidelines on metastatic prostate cancer, trial registries, and recent systematic reviews. Data on trial design, survival, tumour response and toxicity outcomes were extracted from relevant studies. RESULTS: • This review identified six randomized trials of combined chemotherapy with gemcitabine for the management of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. • One trial compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GCis) with methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin(MVAC) and found no difference in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 1.09) but a better safety profile with GCis, which was suggested as the treatment of choice. • A second trial evaluated GCis against gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCarbo) and reported similar median OS (12.8 vs 9.8 months), disease progression (8.3 vs 7.3 months) and tumour response rates (66% vs 56%) for the two patient groups. • A third trial compared GCis with GCis plus paclitaxel (GCisPac) and showed no significant difference in median OS (12.3 vs 15.3 months) and response rates (44% vs 43%) but greater toxicity with GCisPac. • A fourth trial assessed GCarbo against methotrexate plus carboplatin plus vinblastine in patients unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and found similar tumour response rates for each regime (38% vs 20%) but the triplet regime was more toxic. • Two other randomized studies compared a 2-weekly maintenance regime of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel with a 3-weelky regime given for a maximum of six cycles and found that the maintenance schedule did not confer any additional survival benefit. • In all, 53 observational studies of gemcitabine chemotherapy were identified that varied considerably in the drug combinations used and schedules. Overall response rates (17-78%) and median OS (6.4-24.0 months) were variable with no combination being clearly superior. CONCLUSIONS: • Gemcitabine combined chemotherapy is active in the management of metastatic bladder cancer. • GCis may be considered an alternative regime to MVAC. • GCarbo should be considered for patients unfit for cisplatin-based therapy.

Gemcitabine for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder is poor with most patients succumbing to their disease within 2 to 3 years. Clinical management at this stage of the disease is palliative with systemic chemotherapy the main treatment of choice. A number of cytotoxic agents have shown activity in metastatic disease including cisplatin, methotrexate, doxorubicin and vinblastine. However, response rates still need improving and toxicities may sometimes be severe, and so the search for newer agents with improved benefit-to-risk ratios is constantly being pursued. One such agent that shows promise is gemcitabine. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of gemcitabine for the management of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE to identify randomised trials of gemcitabine for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. The searches were from 1966 to July 2010.  Other databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, and the Web of Science®. There were no language or location restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: The titles and abstracts of the combined electronic and hand searching searches were manually screened by two authors to determine if they met the inclusion criteria of this review. Studies were selected if they were randomised, controlled trials or quasi-randomised clinical trials that included gemcitabine in at least one arm of a comparative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was carried out in duplicate by two authors. The information retrieved included the author's details, the study design, the characteristics of the recruited patients, details of the interventions and data relating to the primary and secondary outcomes measures. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised trials used gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GCis) as one of the arms in each trial. The first randomised trial compared GCis with MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin) and showed no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34, P = 0.443) however the GCis regime had fewer incidences of neutropenic sepsis (1% versus 12%, P = 0.001) and mucositis (1% versus 22%, P = 0.001). A second randomised trial compared GCis to gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCarbo) and reported an improved, but non-significant 1-year survival rate with GCis (64% versus 37%). A third randomised trial compared GCis with gemcitabine plus cisplatin plus paclitaxel (GCisPac) and again found no significant difference in overall survival (respective medians 49 weeks versus 61 weeks).One randomised trial evaluated GCarbo against methotrexate plus carboplatin plus vinblastine (MCarboV) in patients "unfit" for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There were more overall responses (38% versus 20%) and less severe acute toxicities (14% versus 23%) with GCarbo.In one randomised study evaluating 3-weekly gemcitabine plus paclitaxel (GPac3) versus a 2-weekly regimen overall survival was not significantly different (respective medians 13 and 9 months) however toxicities were worse with GPac3 especially alopecia (76% versus 32%).A larger trial compared gemcitabine (1 g/m(2)) (grams per metre squared) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) (milligrams per metre squared) as a 3-weekly schedule for 6 cycles with a 2-weekly maintenance schedule. There was no significant difference in response rates, progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A review of the published evidence found that one trial reported gemcitabine plus cisplatin had a better safety profile than MVAC and may be considered the first choice for treatment of metastatic bladder cancer. However, the data are limited to one trial only. Patients unable to tolerate cisplatin may benefit from gemcitabine plus carboplatin.

Surgical management of localised renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgical excision remains the core to the management of localised renal cancer and several studies have evaluated the safety and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and other recently introduced interventions for the localised disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the evidence from randomised trials comparing different surgical interventions in localised renal cell carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised or quasi randomised trials comparing various surgical interventions in the management of adults with surgically resectable localised renal cancer. RCTs were identified by searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1966 to August 2009), EMBASE via Ovid (from 1980 to August 2009), and a number of other data bases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality, and data from published trials were extracted by two reviewers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised trials were identified meeting the inclusion criteria reporting on the comparison between open radical nephrectomy with laparoscopic approach or new modalities of treatment such as radiofrequency or cryoablation. Three randomised controlled trials compared the different laparoscopic approaches to nephrectomy (transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal) and found no statistical difference in operative or perioperative outcomes between the two treatment groups. There were several non-randomised and retrospective case series reporting various advantages of laparoscopic renal cancer surgery such as less blood loss, early recovery and shorter hospital stay AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The main source of evidence for the current practice of laparoscopic excision of renal cancer is drawn from case series, small retrospective studies and very few small randomised controlled trials. The results and conclusions of these studies must therefore be interpreted with caution.