You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Invasive II (MP41)1 Sep 2021MP41-19 ADVERSE EVENTS OF THE SECOND-LINE TREATMENT STRATEGIES FOR PATIENTS WITH LOCALLY ADVANCED OR METASTATIC UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA OF THE BLADDER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Ekaterina Laukhtina, Keiichiro Mori, Hadi Mostafaei, Axel S. Merseburger, Peter Nyirady, Marco Moschini, Fahad Quhal, Benjamin Pradere, Reza Sari Motlagh, Victor M. Schuettfort, Dmitry Enikeev, and Shahrokh F. Shariat Ekaterina LaukhtinaEkaterina Laukhtina More articles by this author , Keiichiro MoriKeiichiro Mori More articles by this author , Hadi MostafaeiHadi Mostafaei More articles by this author , Axel S. MerseburgerAxel S. Merseburger More articles by this author , Peter NyiradyPeter Nyirady More articles by this author , Marco MoschiniMarco Moschini More articles by this author , Fahad QuhalFahad Quhal More articles by this author , Benjamin PradereBenjamin Pradere More articles by this author , Reza Sari MotlaghReza Sari Motlagh More articles by this author , Victor M. SchuettfortVictor M. Schuettfort More articles by this author , Dmitry EnikeevDmitry Enikeev More articles by this author , and Shahrokh F. ShariatShahrokh F. Shariat More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002062.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the mortality rates related to adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation of treatment due to toxicity as well as all AEs of currently used regimens of second-line treatment strategies for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB). METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published from January 2000 until June 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension statement for NMA. Eligible studies included RCTs comparing different second-line treatment strategies for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic UCB. An NMA was performed to assess the mortality rates related to AEs and discontinuation of treatment due to toxicity as well as all AEs. For the assessment of AEs, arm-based analyses were performed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of the AEs and 95% credible interval (CI) from the available raw data presented in the included manuscripts. The relative ranking of the different treatments for each outcome were estimated using the p-score, which can be considered a frequentist analog to the surface under the cumulative ranking curves. RESULTS: Five trials comprising 2,205 patients met our eligibility criteria. Formal NMA was conducted for these outcomes. Therapy regimens were categorized into groups as follows: immunotherapy as single regimen, immunotherapy in combination, and best supportive care (BSC). According to our results, BSC had the best likelihood of resulting in low mortality rates related to AEs (odds ratio (OR): 0.58, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.08–4.03), and toxicity leading to discontinuation of treatment (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01–0.49). It is highly likely that immunotherapy, as single regimen, has the lowest rates of motor and sensory neuropathies (OR: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.02–0.13 and OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01–0.65, respectively), constipation (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.40), abdominal pain (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.03–1.92), alopecia (OR: 0.00, 95% CI: 0.00–0.02), decreased appetite (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45–0.82), vomiting (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13–0.41), and febrile neutropenia (OR: 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01–0.28). It is highly likely that immunotherapy, in combination regimen, has the lowest rates of anemia (OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02–0.81) and fatigue (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.20–0.68). Chemotherapy had the lowest rate of diarrhea (p score: 0.8162) and pneumonitis (p score: 0.9051). CONCLUSIONS: Immunotherapy, especially as a single regimen, was the best tolerated treatment with the lowest AEs. With respect to AEs, chemotherapy should be avoided if possible, in patients with hematological and central nervous system disorders as well as those with inclination to severe constipations. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e768-e769 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ekaterina Laukhtina More articles by this author Keiichiro Mori More articles by this author Hadi Mostafaei More articles by this author Axel S. Merseburger More articles by this author Peter Nyirady More articles by this author Marco Moschini More articles by this author Fahad Quhal More articles by this author Benjamin Pradere More articles by this author Reza Sari Motlagh More articles by this author Victor M. Schuettfort More articles by this author Dmitry Enikeev More articles by this author Shahrokh F. Shariat More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
Read full abstract