Urologia · 2021
A prospective observational study on oral administration of Ellagic Acid and Annona Muricata in patients affected by non-muscle invasive bladder cancer not undergoing maintenance after 6-week intravesical prophylaxis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное 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.
Serretta Vincenzo, Berardinis Ettore De, Simonato Alchiede, Guarneri Alessio, Dispensa Nino, Pavone Carlo, Busetto Gian Maria, Del Giudice Francesco, Sanfilippo Chiara
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: BCG and MMC shortage and Covid-19 pandemic, more recently, limit accessibility to maintenance regimen in intravesical prophylaxis against recurrence of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Ellagic acid (EA) and Annona muricata (AM) exert antitumor activity against different human tumours. An observational prospective study on the prophylactic effect of oral administration of EA+AM in patients avoiding maintenance regimen is presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients affected by NMIBC and not undergoing maintenance after a 6-week course of intravesical prophylaxis with MMC or BCG were entered. Tis and very high-risk tumours were excluded. After informed consent, the patients were subdivided in relation to the oral assumption or not of EA (100 mg) plus AM (100 mg), daily for 6 months. All patients were submitted to 3-month cytology and cystoscopy.
RESULTS: 162 (90%) of 180 entered patients are evaluable, 90 and 72 receiving or not EA+AM. No difference emerged in patients' characteristics between the two groups. BCG was given in 86 (54%) and chemotherapy in 74 (46%) patients. The recurrence free rate at 3, 6 and 12 months in patients assuming or not EA was 96.5% versus 84.6% (p = 0.003), 85.4% versus 64.8% (p = 0.005) and 74.2% versus 60.6% (p = 0.246), respectively. The recurrence free survival at 12 months in patients assuming or not EA was 63.0% versus 34.5% (p < 0.0001).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study suffers several limits: not randomized trial although prospective, limited number of patients and short follow-up, nevertheless it shows the prophylactic effect of oral EA+AM in absence of maintenance after intravesical chemotherapy or immunotherapy induction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients affected by NMIBC and not undergoing maintenance after a 6-week course of intravesical prophylaxis with MMC or BCG were entered. Tis and very high-risk tumours were excluded. After informed consent, the patients were subdivided in relation to the oral assumption or not of EA (100 mg) plus AM (100 mg), daily for 6 months. All patients were submitted to 3-month cytology and cystoscopy.
RESULTS: 162 (90%) of 180 entered patients are evaluable, 90 and 72 receiving or not EA+AM. No difference emerged in patients' characteristics between the two groups. BCG was given in 86 (54%) and chemotherapy in 74 (46%) patients. The recurrence free rate at 3, 6 and 12 months in patients assuming or not EA was 96.5% versus 84.6% (p = 0.003), 85.4% versus 64.8% (p = 0.005) and 74.2% versus 60.6% (p = 0.246), respectively. The recurrence free survival at 12 months in patients assuming or not EA was 63.0% versus 34.5% (p < 0.0001).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study suffers several limits: not randomized trial although prospective, limited number of patients and short follow-up, nevertheless it shows the prophylactic effect of oral EA+AM in absence of maintenance after intravesical chemotherapy or immunotherapy induction.