Investigative and clinical urology · 2026
Intravesical gemcitabine versus Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for intermediate-/high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer during the BCG shortage: Safety, efficacy, and health-economic context.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Costa Tiago Mestriner, Demartino Giovanni, de Toledo Luis Gustavo Morato, Vetorazzi Gabriela Dias, Albano Felipe Falero, de Andrade Vinicius Alves, Moreira Rafael Bali, Fernandes Roni de Carvalho
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, toxicity, efficacy, and health-economic context of intravesical gemcitabine (GEM) in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and compare outcomes with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (Onco-BCG; Cipla Ltd.), particularly during shortages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study included 128 patients with intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC. Sixty-six received intravesical GEM after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), while 62 received Onco-BCG. GEM was administered according to the GUBGEM protocol. Safety was assessed through clinical, laboratory, I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), and CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) v5.0 grading. Efficacy was evaluated by recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression rates, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and pathological characteristics were similar. GEM demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with 90.9% experiencing none or grade 1 adverse events. Urinary tract infection (20.0%), dysuria (17.3%), and musculoskeletal pain (10.8%) were the most common symptoms. No severe systemic toxicities were observed. Recurrence occurred in 34.8% of GEM patients versus 16.1% with Onco-BCG (p=0.016). Median RFS was 32 months for GEM and 60 for Onco-BCG. Log-rank analysis showed significantly lower RFS with GEM (p=0.017), confirmed by Cox regression (hazard ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval 1.30-6.54; p=0.009). Most recurrences occurred within the first 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravesical GEM was safe, well tolerated, and associated with high adherence. Although recurrence prevention was inferior to Onco-BCG-particularly within the first 12 months, with no difference in progression-GEM represents a pragmatic, budget-sensitive alternative during Onco-BCG shortages or intolerance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study included 128 patients with intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC. Sixty-six received intravesical GEM after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), while 62 received Onco-BCG. GEM was administered according to the GUBGEM protocol. Safety was assessed through clinical, laboratory, I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), and CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) v5.0 grading. Efficacy was evaluated by recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression rates, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and pathological characteristics were similar. GEM demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with 90.9% experiencing none or grade 1 adverse events. Urinary tract infection (20.0%), dysuria (17.3%), and musculoskeletal pain (10.8%) were the most common symptoms. No severe systemic toxicities were observed. Recurrence occurred in 34.8% of GEM patients versus 16.1% with Onco-BCG (p=0.016). Median RFS was 32 months for GEM and 60 for Onco-BCG. Log-rank analysis showed significantly lower RFS with GEM (p=0.017), confirmed by Cox regression (hazard ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval 1.30-6.54; p=0.009). Most recurrences occurred within the first 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravesical GEM was safe, well tolerated, and associated with high adherence. Although recurrence prevention was inferior to Onco-BCG-particularly within the first 12 months, with no difference in progression-GEM represents a pragmatic, budget-sensitive alternative during Onco-BCG shortages or intolerance.