SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Sequential gemcitabine-docetaxel in BCG-naïve and BCG-failure non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is associated with a high recurrence rate and the potential to progress, especially among high-risk patients. Limitations of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), including treatment failure, high recurrence rates, adverse events, and global shortages, create an unmet need for alternative agents. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (GEM/DOCE) in the treatment of naïve and BCG-failure high-risk and very high-risk NMIBC. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD420251050582) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2025. Eligible studies enrolled adult patients with NMIBC treated with intravesical sequential GEM/DOCE. Data were synthesized using random-effects and common-effects meta-analysis models for oncological and safety outcomes, incorporating subgroup analyses by prior BCG status. Results: Nine studies comprising 883 patients were included. At 12 months, the pooled recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 73.75% and high-grade recurrence-free survival (HG-RFS) was 75.78%. BCG-naïve patients demonstrated significantly superior 12-month RFS (82.50% vs. 60.00%, p < 0.001) and HG-RFS (84.09% vs. 63.79%, p < 0.001) compared to BCG-failure cohorts. Progression-free survival (95.57%), cancer-specific survival (99.18%), overall survival (97.32%), and cystectomy-free survival (94.41%) remained high at 12 months. GEM/DOCE was generally well tolerated. The pooled proportion of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events was 52.59%, with an overall treatment intolerance rate of only 3.55%. Conclusion: Intravesical GEM/DOCE represents an effective and well-tolerated intravesical therapeutic option in patients with high- and very high-risk NMIBC, demonstrating favorable recurrence outcomes with preserved survival. The regimen appears particularly effective in BCG-naïve disease, while also providing clinically meaningful disease control in BCG-failure populations. However, the available evidence is limited by heterogeneity across studies and the predominance of retrospective designs. Further prospective, adequately powered studies are required to better define its role and optimize treatment protocols. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251050582, identifier CRD420251050582.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.