Efficacy of Different Bacillus of Calmette-Guérin (BCG) Strains on Recurrence Rates among Intermediate/High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancers (NMIBCs): Single-Arm Study Systematic Review, Cumulative and Network Meta-Analysis.
BCG immunotherapy
BCG strain
bladder cancer
network meta-analysis
non-muscle invasive bladder cancer
recurrence rate
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Mar 2023
23 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
14
01
2023
revised:
19
03
2023
accepted:
20
03
2023
medline:
14
4
2023
entrez:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
14
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In an era of Bacillus of Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortages, the comparative efficacy from different adjuvant intravesical BCG strains in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has not been clearly elucidated. We aim to compare, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the cumulative BC recurrence rates and the best efficacy profile of worldwide available BCG strains over the last forty years. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1982 up to 2022. A meta-analysis of pooled BC recurrence rates was stratified for studies with ≤3-y vs. >3-y recurrence-free survival (RFS) endpoints and the strain of BCG. Sensitivity analysis, sub-group analysis, and meta-regression were implemented to investigate the contribution of moderators to heterogeneity. A random-effect network meta-analysis was performed to compare BCG strains on a multi-treatment level. In total, n = 62 series with n = 15,412 patients in n = 100 study arms and n = 10 different BCG strains were reviewed. BCG Tokyo 172 exhibited the lowest pooled BC recurrence rate among studies with ≤3-y RFS (0.22 (95%CI 0.16-0.28). No clinically relevant difference was noted among strains at >3-y RFS outcomes. Sub-group and meta-regression analyses highlighted the influence of NMIBC risk-group classification and previous intravesical treated categories. Out of the n = 11 studies with n = 7 BCG strains included in the network, BCG RIVM, Tice, and Tokyo 172 presented with the best-predicted probability for efficacy, yet no single strain was significantly superior to another in preventing BC recurrence risk. We did not identify a BCG stain providing a clinically significant lower BC recurrence rate. While these findings might discourage investment in future head-to-head randomized comparison, we were, however, able to highlight some potential enhanced benefits from the genetically different BCG RIVM, Tice, and Tokyo 172. This evidence would support the use of such strains for future BCG trials in NMIBCs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In an era of Bacillus of Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortages, the comparative efficacy from different adjuvant intravesical BCG strains in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has not been clearly elucidated. We aim to compare, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the cumulative BC recurrence rates and the best efficacy profile of worldwide available BCG strains over the last forty years.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1982 up to 2022. A meta-analysis of pooled BC recurrence rates was stratified for studies with ≤3-y vs. >3-y recurrence-free survival (RFS) endpoints and the strain of BCG. Sensitivity analysis, sub-group analysis, and meta-regression were implemented to investigate the contribution of moderators to heterogeneity. A random-effect network meta-analysis was performed to compare BCG strains on a multi-treatment level.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, n = 62 series with n = 15,412 patients in n = 100 study arms and n = 10 different BCG strains were reviewed. BCG Tokyo 172 exhibited the lowest pooled BC recurrence rate among studies with ≤3-y RFS (0.22 (95%CI 0.16-0.28). No clinically relevant difference was noted among strains at >3-y RFS outcomes. Sub-group and meta-regression analyses highlighted the influence of NMIBC risk-group classification and previous intravesical treated categories. Out of the n = 11 studies with n = 7 BCG strains included in the network, BCG RIVM, Tice, and Tokyo 172 presented with the best-predicted probability for efficacy, yet no single strain was significantly superior to another in preventing BC recurrence risk.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify a BCG stain providing a clinically significant lower BC recurrence rate. While these findings might discourage investment in future head-to-head randomized comparison, we were, however, able to highlight some potential enhanced benefits from the genetically different BCG RIVM, Tice, and Tokyo 172. This evidence would support the use of such strains for future BCG trials in NMIBCs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37046598
pii: cancers15071937
doi: 10.3390/cancers15071937
pmc: PMC10093360
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 1):1424-8
pubmed: 7933175
BJU Int. 2001 Aug;88(3):209-16
pubmed: 11488731
J Urol. 2008 Jul;180(1):110-5
pubmed: 18485394
Urol Oncol. 1995 May-Jun;1(3):119-26
pubmed: 21224104
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;34(16):1935-44
pubmed: 26811532
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Jan;7(1):111-116
pubmed: 31005491
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Eur Urol. 2009 Aug;56(2):247-56
pubmed: 19409692
Asian J Androl. 2020 Jul-Aug;22(4):360-367
pubmed: 31621654
Int J Clin Oncol. 2012 Oct;17(5):477-81
pubmed: 21947596
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):462-72
pubmed: 23141049
Int Urol Nephrol. 1996;28(4):499-509
pubmed: 9119635
Eur Urol. 2010 May;57(5):766-73
pubmed: 20034729
Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1123-29
pubmed: 17383080
Int J Urol. 2001 Sep;8(9):483-6
pubmed: 11683967
Eur Urol. 2009 Aug;56(2):260-5
pubmed: 19395154
Int J Urol. 2005 May;12(5):449-55
pubmed: 15948743
J Urol. 1990 Mar;143(3):502-6
pubmed: 2106041
J Urol. 1987 Aug;138(2):295-8
pubmed: 3298694
Int J Urol. 2010 Sep;17(9):759-66
pubmed: 20604814
BJU Int. 2011 Jul;108(2):187-95
pubmed: 21176079
J Urol. 2013 Sep;190(3):857-62
pubmed: 23545101
Front Oncol. 2017 Nov 02;7:260
pubmed: 29164059
BMC Urol. 2014 Jan 27;14:11
pubmed: 24468269
J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):50-4
pubmed: 23376145
Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):25-31
pubmed: 19819617
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63
pubmed: 10877304
Urology. 2007 Jul;70(1):65-8
pubmed: 17656210
Eur Urol. 2020 Nov;78(5):690-698
pubmed: 32446864
Int J Urol. 2000 Jun;7(6):206-9
pubmed: 10843451
Cancer. 2010 Apr 15;116(8):1893-900
pubmed: 20162706
BMJ. 2003 Mar 1;326(7387):472
pubmed: 12609941
J Urol. 2001 May;165(5):1488-91
pubmed: 11342902
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Oct;10(10):580-8
pubmed: 24042563
Eur Urol. 2007 Nov;52(5):1398-406
pubmed: 17485161
Eur Urol. 2022 Jan;81(1):75-94
pubmed: 34511303
Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):545-9
pubmed: 16527576
J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2110-2
pubmed: 12771729
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 15;12(10):
pubmed: 33076505
Urology. 2007 Dec;70(6):1075-8
pubmed: 18158020
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 Jan;55(1):23-36
pubmed: 32939939
Eur Urol. 2014 Oct;66(4):677-88
pubmed: 24674149
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Feb;18(1):20-25.e2
pubmed: 31786120
Urol Ann. 2013 Jan;5(1):7-12
pubmed: 23662001
Int Urol Nephrol. 1998;30(1):41-4
pubmed: 9569110
Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30;23(20):3105-24
pubmed: 15449338
Urol Oncol. 2020 May;38(5):433-439
pubmed: 32037199
BMC Urol. 2020 Dec 9;20(1):194
pubmed: 33298034
Urol Oncol. 2016 Nov;34(11):484.e19-484.e25
pubmed: 27639776
Eur Urol. 1999 Dec;36(6):576-81
pubmed: 10559611
Eur Urol. 1991;20(1):19-25
pubmed: 1743226
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Int Urol Nephrol. 1997;29(5):557-63
pubmed: 9413763
Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 Aug;33(8):1379-1387
pubmed: 28471272
Eur Urol. 2011 Jul;60(1):32-6
pubmed: 21497431
J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):405-9
pubmed: 15643181
Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):438-46
pubmed: 21156335
Eur Urol. 2020 Jul;78(1):e18-e20
pubmed: 32360050
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 10;14(4):
pubmed: 35205635
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021 Oct;147(10):3073-3080
pubmed: 33675400
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Jan;7(1):43-51
pubmed: 16389183
Exp Ther Med. 2012 Feb;3(2):221-225
pubmed: 22969872
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):341-7
pubmed: 27085624
J Urol. 1982 Jul;128(1):27-30
pubmed: 6809960
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008 Aug;32(5):821-41
pubmed: 18616602
Int J Urol. 1997 Mar;4(2):139-43
pubmed: 9179686
Br J Urol. 1992 Feb;69(2):147-50
pubmed: 1537026
Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1046-52
pubmed: 26803476
Arab J Urol. 2021 Jan 13;19(1):78-85
pubmed: 33763252
BJU Int. 2004 Mar;93(4):485-90
pubmed: 15008714
Urol Int. 2010;84(1):23-7
pubmed: 20173364
Urol Oncol. 2017 May;35(5):201-207
pubmed: 28041998
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jun 23;14(13):
pubmed: 35804844
J Urol. 2014 May;191(5):1244-9
pubmed: 24231843
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;143(10):1971-1976
pubmed: 28555356
Br J Urol. 1989 Jun;63(6):610-5
pubmed: 2752253
J Urol. 1997 Feb;157(2):487-91
pubmed: 8996340
J Urol. 1988 Sep;140(3):498-500
pubmed: 3411660
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2023 Jan-Feb;47(1):1-3
pubmed: 36319556
Fertil Steril. 2020 Nov;114(5):984-996
pubmed: 32709378
J Urol. 2000 Apr;163(4):1124-9
pubmed: 10737480
Eur Urol Oncol. 2023 Feb;6(1):58-66
pubmed: 36435738
J Urol. 2012 Feb;187(2):435-7
pubmed: 22177154
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):503-510
pubmed: 28286068
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 8;17(9):e0273733
pubmed: 36074771
J Urol. 1999 Aug;162(2):339-42
pubmed: 10411034
BJU Int. 2002 May;89(7):671-80
pubmed: 11966623
Int Urol Nephrol. 1998;30(6):713-22
pubmed: 10195866