Systematic review and meta-analysis on trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Does the current quality of evidence justify definitive conclusions?

Marian S Wettstein, Jasjit K Rooprai, Clinsy Pazhepurackel, Christopher J D Wallis, Zachary Klaassen, Elizabeth M Uleryk, Thomas Hermanns, Neil E Fleshner, Alexandre R Zlotta and Girish S Kulkarni

PLOS ONE, 2019, vol. 14, issue 4, 1-18

Abstract: Objectives: To systematically review and meta-analyze the current literature in a methodologically rigorous and transparent manner for quantitative evidence on survival outcomes among patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that were treated by either trimodal therapy or radical cystectomy. Materials and methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL were systematically searched for comparative observational studies reporting disease-specific survival and/or overall survival on adult patients diagnosed with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer that were exposed to either trimodal therapy or radical cystectomy. Studies qualified for meta-analysis (random effects model) if they were not at critical risk of bias (RoB). Results: The literature search identified 12 eligible studies. Three (all rated as “moderate RoB”) out of 6 studies reporting on disease-specific survival qualified for quantitative analysis and yielded a pooled hazard ratio (trimodal therapy versus radical cystectomy) of 1.39 (95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.88). Four (mainly rated as “serious RoB”) out of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis of overall survival and estimated a hazard ratio of 1.39 (1.20–1.59). Conclusion: Pooled results were significant in favor of radical cystectomy. The conclusion is mainly driven by large population-based studies that are at high RoB. Hence, the certainty of these treatment estimates can be considered very low and further research will likely have an important impact on these estimates. At present, the ultimate decision between trimodal therapy and radical cystectomy should be left to the patient based on individual preferences and on the recommendation of a multidisciplinary provider team experienced with both approaches.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216255 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 16255&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0216255

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216255

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().