Bladder preservation approach versus radical cystectomy for high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

backgroundHigh-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is superficial; nonetheless, it is an aggressive cancer. Proper management strategy selection following transurethral resection between bladder preservation (BP) and radical cystectomy (RC) could result in delayed or excessive treatment. Hence, selecting the optimal treatment modality remains controversial to date.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database through 12 April 2018. Quality and publication bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Begg's/Egger's test. We collected 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year survival rate and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Using the Review Manager 5.2 software, we used the odds ratio (OR) of specific years and HR for meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed by the original tumor state, radical cystectomy timing, bladder preservation modality, and age.

resultsIn total, 11 cohorts with 1735 patients were selected for the meta-analysis. All OR of OS supported BP as a better treatment option; however, all OR of PFS had no significant differences. As for CSS, only the 15-year OR reflected a statistical significance preferring RC. Subgroup analysis showed that BP is more appropriate for patients older than 65 and G3 tumor. Limited data demonstrated that late RC (> 3 months) is more effective compared to early RC (< 3 months) and intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin was not statistically different from that of RC. The mixed BP modalities were significantly better compared to RC in OS and worse in CSS, with both having a very low evidence strength.

conclusionsBP is a superior treatment modality compare to RC, especially for older patients and T1G3 or lower grade tumors. However, the superior BP modality was unclear. Conversely, RC could be a better option for younger patients. More specifically, late RC may be more beneficial but had a very-low-level of evidence. Quality of life should be considered equal to survival outcome; hence, post-treatment follow-up needs to be performed. Prospective randomized studies should be performed to overcome the limitations of this meta-analysis study. REGISTRATION: Registration ID is CRD42018093491 .