International urology and nephrology · 2026
Comparative efficacy of hyperthermic chemotherapy and BCG instillation in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chai Yucong, Zhou YinXiong, Peng Hao, Jiang Yuqi, Dai Junzhe, Liu Jing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To 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).
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Seven 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.
CONCLUSION: HIVEC 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Seven 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.
CONCLUSION: HIVEC 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.