SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Comparative efficacy of hyperthermic chemotherapy and BCG instillation in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) versus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) instillation in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CBM from inception to June 30, 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD420251075299. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing HIVEC with BCG in NMIBC patients were included. Primary outcomes were 24-month recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included adverse events. Risk ratios (RRs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models.
resultsSeven studies involving 820 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between HIVEC and BCG in 24-month RFS (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.12), PFS (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.05), or OS (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.91-1.09). However, BCG was associated with a significantly higher incidence of dysuria (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.57-3.37). No significant differences were observed in other adverse events such as urinary tract infection, hematuria, or pain.
conclusionHIVEC demonstrates comparable oncological efficacy to BCG in terms of 24-month RFS, PFS, and OS for NMIBC patients, while offering a better tolerability profile with a significantly lower risk of dysuria. These findings support HIVEC as a valuable alternative treatment option, particularly in the context of BCG shortages or for BCG-intolerant patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41520313What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.