Cargando…

Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Different BCG strains are currently available and the superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. We compared the eff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Del Giudice, Francesco, Flammia, Rocco Simone, Chung, Benjamin I., Moschini, Marco, Pradere, Benjamin, Mari, Andrea, Soria, Francesco, Albisinni, Simone, Krajewski, Wojciech, Szydełko, Tomasz, Laukhtina, Ekaterina, D’Andrea, David, Gallioli, Andrea, Mertens, Laura S., Maggi, Martina, Sciarra, Alessandro, Salciccia, Stefano, Ferro, Matteo, Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria, Asero, Vincenzo, Cattarino, Susanna, De Angelis, Mario, Cacciamani, Giovanni E., Autorino, Riccardo, Pandolfo, Savio Domenico, Falagario, Ugo Giovanni, D’Altilia, Nicola, Mancini, Vito, Chirico, Marco, Cinelli, Francesco, Bettocchi, Carlo, Cormio, Luigi, Carrieri, Giuseppe, De Berardinis, Ettore, Busetto, Gian Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35205635
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040887
_version_ 1784656606268489728
author Del Giudice, Francesco
Flammia, Rocco Simone
Chung, Benjamin I.
Moschini, Marco
Pradere, Benjamin
Mari, Andrea
Soria, Francesco
Albisinni, Simone
Krajewski, Wojciech
Szydełko, Tomasz
Laukhtina, Ekaterina
D’Andrea, David
Gallioli, Andrea
Mertens, Laura S.
Maggi, Martina
Sciarra, Alessandro
Salciccia, Stefano
Ferro, Matteo
Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria
Asero, Vincenzo
Cattarino, Susanna
De Angelis, Mario
Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
Autorino, Riccardo
Pandolfo, Savio Domenico
Falagario, Ugo Giovanni
D’Altilia, Nicola
Mancini, Vito
Chirico, Marco
Cinelli, Francesco
Bettocchi, Carlo
Cormio, Luigi
Carrieri, Giuseppe
De Berardinis, Ettore
Busetto, Gian Maria
author_facet Del Giudice, Francesco
Flammia, Rocco Simone
Chung, Benjamin I.
Moschini, Marco
Pradere, Benjamin
Mari, Andrea
Soria, Francesco
Albisinni, Simone
Krajewski, Wojciech
Szydełko, Tomasz
Laukhtina, Ekaterina
D’Andrea, David
Gallioli, Andrea
Mertens, Laura S.
Maggi, Martina
Sciarra, Alessandro
Salciccia, Stefano
Ferro, Matteo
Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria
Asero, Vincenzo
Cattarino, Susanna
De Angelis, Mario
Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
Autorino, Riccardo
Pandolfo, Savio Domenico
Falagario, Ugo Giovanni
D’Altilia, Nicola
Mancini, Vito
Chirico, Marco
Cinelli, Francesco
Bettocchi, Carlo
Cormio, Luigi
Carrieri, Giuseppe
De Berardinis, Ettore
Busetto, Gian Maria
author_sort Del Giudice, Francesco
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Different BCG strains are currently available and the superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. We compared the efficacy of two BCG strains: RIVM and TICE, respectively. In this propensity-score matched cohort study, we showed no particular survival benefit of TICE vs RIVM in the case of high-risk disease. Nevertheless, stratifying our data for re-staging procedures and for those who received BCG maintenance, we identified BCG TICE to improve RFS independently. Herein, we corroborated the importance of performing a routine secondary resection followed by an adequate maintenance course of BCG. Future larger prospective randomized head-to-head trials are needed to further elucidate this important topic, especially in this era of BCG shortage. ABSTRACT: Background: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. Methods: Patients with NMIBCs underwent adjuvant induction ± maintenance schedule of intravesical immunotherapy with either BCG TICE or RIVM at two high-volume tertiary institutions. Only BCG-naïve patients and those treated with the same strain over the course of follow-up were included. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching (PSM) between the two cohorts was utilized to adjust for baseline demographic and tumor characteristics imbalances. Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models according to high-risk NMIBC prognostic factors were implemented to address survival differences between the strains. Sub-group analysis modeling of the influence of routine secondary resection (re-TUR) in the setting of the sole maintenance adjuvant schedule for the two strains was further performed. Results: 852 Ta-T1 NMIBCs (n = 719, 84.4% on TICE; n = 133, 15.6% on RIVM) with a median of 53 (24–77) months of follow-up were reviewed. After PSM, no differences at 5-years RFS, PFS, and CSS at both Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were detected for the whole cohort. In the sub-group setting of full adherence to European/American Urology Guidelines (EAU/NCCN), BCG TICE demonstrated longer 5-years RFS compared to RIVM (68% vs. 43%, p = 0.008; HR: 0.45 95% CI 0.25–0.81). Conclusion: When routinely performing re-TUR followed by a maintenance BCG schedule, TICE was superior to RIVM for RFS outcomes. However, no significant differences were detected for PFS and CSS, respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8869903
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88699032022-02-25 Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis Del Giudice, Francesco Flammia, Rocco Simone Chung, Benjamin I. Moschini, Marco Pradere, Benjamin Mari, Andrea Soria, Francesco Albisinni, Simone Krajewski, Wojciech Szydełko, Tomasz Laukhtina, Ekaterina D’Andrea, David Gallioli, Andrea Mertens, Laura S. Maggi, Martina Sciarra, Alessandro Salciccia, Stefano Ferro, Matteo Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria Asero, Vincenzo Cattarino, Susanna De Angelis, Mario Cacciamani, Giovanni E. Autorino, Riccardo Pandolfo, Savio Domenico Falagario, Ugo Giovanni D’Altilia, Nicola Mancini, Vito Chirico, Marco Cinelli, Francesco Bettocchi, Carlo Cormio, Luigi Carrieri, Giuseppe De Berardinis, Ettore Busetto, Gian Maria Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Different BCG strains are currently available and the superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. We compared the efficacy of two BCG strains: RIVM and TICE, respectively. In this propensity-score matched cohort study, we showed no particular survival benefit of TICE vs RIVM in the case of high-risk disease. Nevertheless, stratifying our data for re-staging procedures and for those who received BCG maintenance, we identified BCG TICE to improve RFS independently. Herein, we corroborated the importance of performing a routine secondary resection followed by an adequate maintenance course of BCG. Future larger prospective randomized head-to-head trials are needed to further elucidate this important topic, especially in this era of BCG shortage. ABSTRACT: Background: Intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) is the standard therapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The superiority of any BCG strain over another could not be demonstrated yet. Methods: Patients with NMIBCs underwent adjuvant induction ± maintenance schedule of intravesical immunotherapy with either BCG TICE or RIVM at two high-volume tertiary institutions. Only BCG-naïve patients and those treated with the same strain over the course of follow-up were included. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching (PSM) between the two cohorts was utilized to adjust for baseline demographic and tumor characteristics imbalances. Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models according to high-risk NMIBC prognostic factors were implemented to address survival differences between the strains. Sub-group analysis modeling of the influence of routine secondary resection (re-TUR) in the setting of the sole maintenance adjuvant schedule for the two strains was further performed. Results: 852 Ta-T1 NMIBCs (n = 719, 84.4% on TICE; n = 133, 15.6% on RIVM) with a median of 53 (24–77) months of follow-up were reviewed. After PSM, no differences at 5-years RFS, PFS, and CSS at both Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were detected for the whole cohort. In the sub-group setting of full adherence to European/American Urology Guidelines (EAU/NCCN), BCG TICE demonstrated longer 5-years RFS compared to RIVM (68% vs. 43%, p = 0.008; HR: 0.45 95% CI 0.25–0.81). Conclusion: When routinely performing re-TUR followed by a maintenance BCG schedule, TICE was superior to RIVM for RFS outcomes. However, no significant differences were detected for PFS and CSS, respectively. MDPI 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8869903/ /pubmed/35205635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040887 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Del Giudice, Francesco
Flammia, Rocco Simone
Chung, Benjamin I.
Moschini, Marco
Pradere, Benjamin
Mari, Andrea
Soria, Francesco
Albisinni, Simone
Krajewski, Wojciech
Szydełko, Tomasz
Laukhtina, Ekaterina
D’Andrea, David
Gallioli, Andrea
Mertens, Laura S.
Maggi, Martina
Sciarra, Alessandro
Salciccia, Stefano
Ferro, Matteo
Scornajenghi, Carlo Maria
Asero, Vincenzo
Cattarino, Susanna
De Angelis, Mario
Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
Autorino, Riccardo
Pandolfo, Savio Domenico
Falagario, Ugo Giovanni
D’Altilia, Nicola
Mancini, Vito
Chirico, Marco
Cinelli, Francesco
Bettocchi, Carlo
Cormio, Luigi
Carrieri, Giuseppe
De Berardinis, Ettore
Busetto, Gian Maria
Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title_full Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title_fullStr Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title_short Compared Efficacy of Adjuvant Intravesical BCG-TICE vs. BCG-RIVM for High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
title_sort compared efficacy of adjuvant intravesical bcg-tice vs. bcg-rivm for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (nmibc): a propensity score matched analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35205635
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040887
work_keys_str_mv AT delgiudicefrancesco comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT flammiaroccosimone comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT chungbenjamini comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT moschinimarco comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT praderebenjamin comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT mariandrea comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT soriafrancesco comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT albisinnisimone comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT krajewskiwojciech comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT szydełkotomasz comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT laukhtinaekaterina comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT dandreadavid comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT gallioliandrea comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT mertenslauras comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT maggimartina comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT sciarraalessandro comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT salcicciastefano comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT ferromatteo comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT scornajenghicarlomaria comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT aserovincenzo comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT cattarinosusanna comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT deangelismario comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT cacciamanigiovannie comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT autorinoriccardo comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT pandolfosaviodomenico comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT falagariougogiovanni comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT daltilianicola comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT mancinivito comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT chiricomarco comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT cinellifrancesco comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT bettocchicarlo comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT cormioluigi comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT carrierigiuseppe comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT deberardinisettore comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT busettogianmaria comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT comparedefficacyofadjuvantintravesicalbcgticevsbcgrivmforhighrisknonmuscleinvasivebladdercancernmibcapropensityscorematchedanalysis