Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29164059›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2017

Intravesical Gemcitabine versus Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for the Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: An Evaluation of Efficacy and Toxicity.

Thiru Prasanna, Paul Craft, Gayathri Balasingam, Hodo Haxhimolla, Ganes Pranavan

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. ADAM12 promotes gemcitabine resistance by activating EGFR signaling pathway and induces EMT in bladder cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thiru PrasannaDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Paul CraftDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Gayathri BalasingamDepartment of General Medicine, The Calvary Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Hodo HaxhimollaDepartment of General Medicine, The Calvary Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Ganes PranavanDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Canberra Hospital · AUCalvary Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) remains the standard adjuvant treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) following transurethral resection; however, BCG failure and related toxicities are common.

objectivesTo compare the efficacy and toxicity of intravesical BCG and gemcitabine in the treatment of NMIBC.

methodsRetrospective data were collected in the region of Canberra, Australia from January 2010 to December 2015. The survival cutoff was December 2016. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) and secondary end point was toxicity. After optimal transurethral resection all patients received weekly intravesical BCG or gemcitabine for 6 weeks and maintenance treatment according to their risk. The recurrence was defined as histology proven tumor recurrence (any grade), or appearance of carcinoma

resultsOne hundred and three patients were evaluable, 52 treated with BCG and 51 with gemcitabine with a median age of 77 and 78, and were mostly male. Approximately half of each received maintenance therapy. The groups were well balanced, apart from some difference in cancer risk groups. Twenty-one percent in the BCG group and 29% in the gemcitabine group had received prior BCG. Median follow up was 15.0 months. Median DFS was 19.6 months for BCG, whereas median DFS was not reached with gemcitabine. There was a trend toward improved DFS with gemcitabine in multivariate analysis, HR: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.22-1.06,

conclusionIntravesical gemcitabine was associated with a trend toward better DFS with significantly lower toxicity when compared with BCG. Intravesical BCG remains the standard first-line adjuvant therapy; however, intravesical gemcitabine could be a reasonable alternative in cases where BCG is contraindicated and for patients who are intolerant or refractory to BCG. A prospective phase 3 trial is needed to confirm the benefits of gemcitabine over BCG.

Indexed as

bladder cancercarcinoma in situcystitisgemcitabineintravesical therapy

Identifiers

PMID29164059
PMCPMC5673621
OpenAlexW2765222635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.