• Something wrong with this record ?

Fibroblast growth factor receptor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic value and therapeutic options in patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma

M. Kardoust Parizi, V. Margulis, Y. Lotan, K. Mori, SF. Shariat

. 2021 ; 39 (7) : 409-421. [pub] 20210226

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22004169

To evaluate the oncologic prognostic value of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and to assess the safety and efficacy of its inhibitors in patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma. A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted on June 2020 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The pooled recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated using a fixed or random effects model in patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Overall, 62 studies comprising 9,229 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Both FGFR3 mutation and protein overexpression were significantly associated with RFS, PFS, CSS, and overall survival. FGFR3 mutation was associated with worse RFS and better PFS (pooled hazard ratio: 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.57, and pooled hazard ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.92, respectively) in patients with NMIBC. In 11 studies reporting on the response to FGFR inhibitors, complete response rates, disease control rates, and overall response rate of 0% to 8%, 59.3% to 64.2%, and 40% were reported for dovitinib, infigratinib, and erdafitinib, respectively. Based on this study, FGFR3 mutation is a statistically significant prognostic factor for RFS in NMIBC. FGFR inhibitors have measurable benefit in patients with advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, the results of ongoing RCTs and future well-designed studies are awaited to capture the differential biologic and clinical behavior of tumors harboring FGFR while helping to identify those who are most likely to benefit from FGFR inhibitors.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22004169
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220127145450.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.025 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33642228
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Kardoust Parizi, Mehdi $u Department of Urology, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
245    10
$a Fibroblast growth factor receptor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic value and therapeutic options in patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma / $c M. Kardoust Parizi, V. Margulis, Y. Lotan, K. Mori, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a To evaluate the oncologic prognostic value of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and to assess the safety and efficacy of its inhibitors in patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma. A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted on June 2020 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The pooled recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated using a fixed or random effects model in patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Overall, 62 studies comprising 9,229 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Both FGFR3 mutation and protein overexpression were significantly associated with RFS, PFS, CSS, and overall survival. FGFR3 mutation was associated with worse RFS and better PFS (pooled hazard ratio: 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.57, and pooled hazard ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.92, respectively) in patients with NMIBC. In 11 studies reporting on the response to FGFR inhibitors, complete response rates, disease control rates, and overall response rate of 0% to 8%, 59.3% to 64.2%, and 40% were reported for dovitinib, infigratinib, and erdafitinib, respectively. Based on this study, FGFR3 mutation is a statistically significant prognostic factor for RFS in NMIBC. FGFR inhibitors have measurable benefit in patients with advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, the results of ongoing RCTs and future well-designed studies are awaited to capture the differential biologic and clinical behavior of tumors harboring FGFR while helping to identify those who are most likely to benefit from FGFR inhibitors.
650    _2
$a karcinom z přechodných buněk $x farmakoterapie $7 D002295
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a receptory fibroblastových růstových faktorů $x antagonisté a inhibitory $7 D017468
650    _2
$a nádory močového měchýře $x farmakoterapie $7 D001749
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Margulis, Vitaly $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
700    1_
$a Lotan, Yair $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
700    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; European Association of Urology research foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands. Electronic address: sfshariat@gmail.com
773    0_
$w MED00008671 $t Urologic oncology $x 1873-2496 $g Roč. 39, č. 7 (2021), s. 409-421
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33642228 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220127145447 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1751585 $s 1155318
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 39 $c 7 $d 409-421 $e 20210226 $i 1873-2496 $m Urologic oncology $n Urol Oncol $x MED00008671
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options