A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection
Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium electronic-ecollection
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled
PubMed
38994538
PubMed Central
PMC11181687
DOI
10.3233/blc-201510
PII: BLC201510
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Outcome reporting heterogeneity, TURBT, core outcome sets, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), systematic review,
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
BACKGROUND: Heterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant treatment after transurethral resection (TURBT) has been noted in systematic reviews (SRs). This hinders comparing results across trials, combining them in meta-analyses, and evidence-based decision-making for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the extent of reporting and definition heterogeneity. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from SRs comparing adjuvant treatments after TURBT or TURBT alone in patients with NMIBC (with or without carcinoma in situ) published between 2000-2020. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: We screened 807 abstracts; from 15 SRs, 57 RCTs were included. Verbatim outcome names were coded to standard outcome names and organised using the Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. Recurrence (98%), progression (74%), treatment response (in CIS studies) (40%), and adverse events (77%) were frequently reported across studies. However, overall (33%) and cancer-specific (33%) survival, treatment completion (17%) and treatment change (37%) were less often reported. Quality of Life (3%) and economic outcomes (2%) were rarely reported. Heterogeneity was evident throughout, particularly in the definitions of progression and recurrence, and how CIS patients were handled in the analysis of studies with predominantly papillary patients, highlighting further issues with the definition of recurrence and progression vs treatment response for CIS patients. Data reporting was also inconsistent, with some trials reporting event rates at various time-points and others reporting time-to-event with or without Hazard Ratios. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. QoL data was absent in most trials. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogenous outcome reporting is evident in NMIBC effectiveness trials. This has profound implications for meta-analyses, SRs and evidence-based treatment decisions. A core outcome set is required to reduce heterogeneity. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review found inconsistencies in outcome definitions and reporting, pointing out the urgent need for a core outcome set to help improve evidence-based treatment decisions.
Academic Urology Unit University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine University of Florence Florence Italy
Department of Urology Aberdeen Royal Infirmary NHS Grampian Aberdeen UK
Department of Urology Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
Department of Urology Tampere University Hospital Tampere Finland
Division of Gastroenterology Department of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton ON Canada
EAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel Brussels Belgium
Inspiring health GmbH Munich Germany
Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences University of Birmingham Birmingham UK
Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation Careggi Hospital Florence Italy
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Richters A, Aben KKH, Kiemeney LALM. The global burden of urinary bladder cancer: an update. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1895–904. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02984-4 PubMed DOI PMC
van Rhijn BWG, Burger M, Lotan Y, et al. Recurrence and Progression of Disease in Non– Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: From Epidemiology to Treatment Strategy. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):430–42. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.028 PubMed DOI
Babjuk M, Burger M, Compérat EM, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (TaT1 and Carcinoma In Situ) - 2019 Update. Eur Urol. 2019;76(5):639–57. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.016 PubMed DOI
Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell; 2017.
Botteman MF, Pashos CL, Redaelli A, Laskin B, Hauser R. The health economics of bladder cancer: A comprehensive review of the published literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2003;21(18):1315–30. doi:10.1007/BF03262330 PubMed DOI
Riley GF, Potosky AL, Lubitz JD, Kessler LG. Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care. 1995;33(8):828–41. doi:10.1097/00005650-199508000-00007 PubMed DOI
Mossanen M, Wang Y, Szymaniak J, et al. Evaluating the cost of surveillance for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an analysis based on risk categories. World J Urol. 2019;37(10):2059–65. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2550-x PubMed DOI
Svatek RS, Hollenbeck BK, Holmäng S, et al. The Economics of Bladder Cancer: Costs and Considerations of Caring for This Disease. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):253–62. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.006 PubMed DOI
Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Sullivan R, Witjes JA. Economic Burden of Bladder Cancer Across the European Union. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):438–47. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.024 PubMed DOI
Sylvester RJ, Oosterlinck W, Holmang S, et al. Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials Comparing a Single Immediate Instillation of Chemotherapy After Transurethral Resection with Transurethral Resection Alone in Patients with Stage pTa-pT1 Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: Which Patients Benefit from the Instillation? Eur Urol. 2016;69(2):231–44. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.050 PubMed DOI
Perlis N, Zlotta AR, Beyene J, Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Kulkarni GS. Immediate post-transurethral resection of bladder tumor intravesical chemotherapy prevents non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer recurrences: an updated meta-analysis on 2548 patients and quality-of-evidence review. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):421–30. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.009 PubMed DOI
Abern MR, Owusu RA, Anderson MR, Rampersaud EN, Inman BA. Perioperative intravesical chemotherapy in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2013;11(4):477–84. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2013.0060 PubMed DOI
Bladder cancer: diagnosis and management of bladder cancer: © NICE (2015) . Bladder cancer: diagnosis and management of bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120(6):755–65. doi:10.1111/bju.14045 PubMed DOI
Sylvester RJ, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA. The Schedule and Duration of Intravesical Chemotherapy in Patients with Non– Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Published Results of Randomized Clinical Trials. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):709–19. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.015 PubMed DOI PMC
Cambier S, Sylvester RJ, Collette L, et al. EORTC Nomograms and Risk Groups for Predicting Recurrence, Progression, and Disease-specific and Overall Survival in Non-Muscle-invasive Stage Ta-T1 Urothelial Bladder Cancer Patients Treated with 1-3 Years of Maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guérin. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):60–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.045 PubMed DOI
Hernández V, Espinos EL, Dunn J, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes of sexual function– preserving cystectomy compared with standard radical cystectomy in men: A systematic review. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2017;35(9):539.e17–539.e29. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.04.013 PubMed DOI
Veskimäe E, Neuzillet Y, Rouanne M, et al. Systematic review of the oncological and functional outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (RC) compared with standard RC in women who undergo curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120(1):12–24. doi:10.1111/bju.13819 PubMed DOI
Bruins HM, Veskimae E, Hernandez V, et al. The impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1065–77. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.031 PubMed DOI
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 PubMed DOI PMC
Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E. Driving up the Quality and Relevance of Research Through the Use of Agreed Core Outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17(1):1–2. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 PubMed DOI
Tunis SR, Clarke M, Gorst SL, et al. Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5(2):193–205. doi:10.2217/cer-2015-0007 PubMed DOI PMC
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 PubMed DOI PMC
Kamat AM, Sylvester RJ, Böhle A, et al. Definitions, End Points, and Clinical Trial Designs for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Recommendations From the International Bladder Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1935–44. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.64.4070 PubMed DOI PMC
Bruce I, Harman N, Williamson P, et al. The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt): a feasibility study and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(68):1–374. doi:10.3310/hta19680 PubMed DOI PMC
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMed DOI PMC
Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 PubMed DOI PMC
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 PubMed DOI PMC
Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020 PubMed DOI PMC
de Reijke TM, Kurth KH, Sylvester RJ, et al. Bacillus calmette-guerin versus epirubicin for primary, secondary or concurrent carcinoma in situ of the bladder: Results of a European organization for the research and treatment of cancer—genito-urinary group phase III trial (30906). J Urol. 2005;173(2):405–9. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000150425.09317.67 PubMed DOI
Koga H, Ozono S, Tsushima T, et al. Maintenance intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin instillation for Ta, T1 cancer and carcinoma in situ of the bladder: Randomized controlled trial by the BCG Tokyo Strain Study Group: Maintenance intravesical BCG. Int J Urol. 2010;17(9):759–66. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02584.x PubMed DOI
Huang W, Wang F, Wu C, Hu W. Efficacy and safety of pirarubicin combined with hyaluronic acid for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer after transurethral resection: a prospective, randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(4):631–6. doi:10.1007/s11255-015-0940-1 PubMed DOI
Berrum-Svennung I, Granfors T, Jahnson S, Boman H, Holmäng S. A Single Instillation of Epirubicin After Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors Prevents Only Small Recurrences. J Urol. 2008;179(1):101–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.166 PubMed DOI
Smith AB, Jaeger B, Pinheiro LC, et al. Impact of bladder cancer on health-related quality of life. BJU Int. 2018;121(4):549–57. doi:10.1111/bju.14047 PubMed DOI
Blazeby JM, Hall E, Aaronson NK, et al. Validation and Reliability Testing of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 Questionnaire Module to Assess Patient-reported Outcomes in Non– Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1148–56. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.034 PubMed DOI PMC
Mason SJ, Catto JWF, Downing A, Bottomley SE, Glaser AW, Wright P. Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for bladder cancer: a systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. BJU Int. 2018;122(5):760–73. doi:10.1111/bju.14368 PubMed DOI PMC
Abáigar-Pedraza I, Megías-Garrigós J, Sánchez-Payá J. Cuestionario de calidad de vida para pacientes con cáncer de vejiga no músculo invasivo. Actas Urol Esp. 2016;40(4):251–7. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2015.12.001 PubMed DOI
Cox E, Saramago P, Kelly J, et al. Effects of Bladder Cancer on UK Healthcare Costs and Patient Health-Related Quality of Life: Evidence From the BOXIT Trial. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18(4):e418–e442. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.004 PubMed DOI PMC
Lamm D, Persad R, Brausi M, et al. Defining progression in nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: it is time for a new, standard definition. J Urol. 2014;191(1):20–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.102 PubMed DOI
COSMIN handbook. https://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/cosmin_checklist_manual_v9.pdf.