Abstract

Conflicting results of survival outcomes for primary and secondary muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) have been reported in previous studies. Primary MIBC is defined as presentation of muscle-invasive disease at initial diagnosis while secondary MIBC presumes that non-muscle invasive disease later progressed to MIBC. Due to the varying reports, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival outcomes between the two groups. Relevant studies were retrieved from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus using a comprehensive search approach. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was the outcome measure. A total of 14 studies involving 4,075 cases were included. Patients with secondary MIBC were significantly correlated with worse CSS in model I (pooled HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.07–1.56, P = 0.008). The results of sensitivity analyses indicated that the omission of any single study each time did not have a significant impact on the combined risk estimates. Egger’s test suggested no publication bias among these studies. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk score offers the possibility of stratifying the secondary MIBC patients into different risk groups. In high-risk NMIBC, timely radical cystectomy should be considered. Further study is required to assess the multimodal therapy in both high-risk NMIBC and secondary MIBC patients as well as to evaluate genetic and molecular drivers of tumor induction, promotion, and progression.

Highlights

  • For patients with non-high risk NMIBC, conservative therapy with closer surveillance is the preferred option

  • We found that patients with secondary muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were significantly correlated with worse cancer-specific survival (CSS)

  • The present study showed that secondary MIBC conveyed an inferior outcome compared to primary MIBC

Read more

Summary

Introduction

For patients with non-high risk NMIBC, conservative therapy with closer surveillance is the preferred option. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess prognostic differences between patients with primary MIBC and patients with secondary MIBC.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.