Next Article in Journal
Clinicopathological-Associated Regulatory Network of Deregulated circRNAs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Previous Article in Journal
Involvement of Neutrophils in Metastatic Evolution of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/cancers13112770
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin (ddMVAC) with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (GC) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Doo Yong Chung
1,
Dong Hyuk Kang
1,
Jong Won Kim
1,
Jee Soo Ha
2,
Do Kyung Kim
3 and
Kang Su Cho
2,*
1
Department of Urology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon 22212, Korea
2
Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 06273, Korea
3
Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University Medical College, Seoul 04401, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(11), 2770; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112770
Submission received: 1 April 2021 / Revised: 26 May 2021 / Accepted: 31 May 2021 / Published: 2 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Therapy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Currently, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is becoming a standard treatment for use in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, comparisons of oncologic outcomes for the two most commonly used NAC regimens, ddMVAC (dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) and GC (gemcitabine and cisplatin), are controversial. We sought to compare the oncologic outcomes of these two regimens via a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available studies published to date. Through this, we aimed to provide evidence on the optimal NAC regimen for use in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Abstract

Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is widely used for treating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the oncologic outcomes of ddMVAC (dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) and GC (gemcitabine and cisplatin), which are the most widely used NAC regimens. Endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR), pathologic downstaging (pDS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Five studies, with a total of 1206 patients, were included for meta-analysis. pCR was observed in 35.2% of the ddMVAC arm and in 25.1% of the GC arm, and pCR was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–1.89; p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in pDS (OR, 1.37; CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.20). OS was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (hazard ratio, 2.16; CI, 1.42–3.29; p = 0.0004). Only one study reported CSS outcomes. The results of this analysis indicate that ddMVAC is superior to GC in terms of pCR and OS, suggesting that ddMVAC is more effective than GC in NAC for MIBC. However, this should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of retrospective studies.

1. Introduction

Bladder cancer manifests in most cases as a non-muscle invasive disease and requires only local treatment. Notwithstanding, approximately 25% of bladder cancers invade the muscle layers and 5% have metastatic disease [1]. Radical cystectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection is a standard local treatment for non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, a large proportion of MIBC patients experience relapse and eventually die after radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection [2]. Local recurrence rates range from 30% to 54%, and distant relapses occur in up to 50% of cases [3,4,5,6]. Therefore, perioperative chemotherapy, such as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, is used for MIBC. In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses evaluating the clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) [7,8,9], an increase in overall survival (OS) by 5–6% for NAC, compared with radical cystectomy alone, was reported in MIBC patients [10,11].
Various NAC regimens have been tested over the years. The American Urological Association and the European Urological Association guidelines currently recommend platinum-based NAC [3,12]. The most studied platinum-based NACs include methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) regimens, and gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) regimens. In 2003, the Southwest Oncology Group-8710 RCT demonstrated that the use of an MVAC regimen for NAC improved survival and pathologic downstaging (pDS) [10]. Another RCT reported that the oncologic outcomes of GC and MVAC regimens were similar; however, the former had a better toxicity profile [13]. One study was conducted on dose-dense MVAC (ddMVAC) plus human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to supplement the toxicity of MVAC, and a phase 2 trial showed that NAC based on a ddMVAC regimen was well tolerated and safe and that the oncologic results were similar to those of standard regimens [14,15]. Based on these favorable results, ddMVAC and GC have been widely used in NAC in recent years, and the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend these two regimens for NAC [12].
However, few studies have compared the two regimens, and a recent phase 3 RCT study did not report long-term follow-up results [16]. Therefore, analyzing studies that have compared ddMVAC and GC regimens for NAC is essential. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of ddMVAC and GC, to determine which is optimal in NAC for patients with MIBC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Data Extraction

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020196422) and complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (assessed on 31 May 2021)) [17]. Relevant studies that compared two NAC regimens (ddMVAC and GC) for MIBC were searched up to December 2020 using PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the following Medical Subject Headings terms: “bladder cancer”, “bladder carcinoma”, “neoadjuvant”, “MVAC”, “gemcitabine”, “cisplatin”, “regimen”, and relevant variations of these terms. The search was restricted to human studies published in English. Two reviewers (DYC and JWK) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles based on the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies in the data extracted between the two reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer (KSC). The study was exempt from the approval of an ethics committee or institutional review board because it was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria and Study Eligibility

The eligibility of each study was evaluated taking into account participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design approach (PICOS): [18] Participants, patients with biopsy-proven MIBC who intended to undergo radical cystectomy and patients who underwent systemic NAC; Interventions, MIBC patients who underwent systemic NAC using ddMVAC; Comparators, MIBC patients who underwent systemic NAC using GC with the same characteristics; Outcomes, comparison of oncologic outcomes (pathologic complete response (pCR), pDS, OS, and cancer-specific survival (CSS)); and Study design, no restrictions on research design, with both randomized controlled studies and nonrandomized observational studies included for analysis.
The primary endpoint was pCR, the secondary endpoint was pDS, and the tertiary endpoints were OS and CSS. Both pCR and pDS were determined by pathological examination after surgery; pDS was defined as decreased pathologic stage compared with the preoperative clinical stage, or downstaging to non-muscle-invasive disease. CSS and OS were defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date of cancer-specific mortality and death from any cause, respectively.

2.3. Quality Assessment

A quality assessment was independently performed by two reviewers (DYC and DHK) using the criteria provided by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale [19,20]. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for quality assessments of RCTs was recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and includes the following risk-of-bias domains: (1) random sequence generation, (2) allocation concealment, (3) blinding of participants and personnel, (4) blinding of outcome assessment, (5) incomplete outcome data, (6) selective reporting, and (7) other potential biases. Each item was further divided into three categories based on the risk of bias: high, low, and unknown. The three major assessment categories of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale were selection, comparability, and exposure. Studies can be rated up to nine stars. A final score of six stars or more indicates high quality.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous variables (pCR and pDS). The effects of NAC on OS and CSS were measured using hazard ratios (HRs). Log HR values were obtained from trials reporting HR estimates and CIs, and the standard errors of log HR were calculated using CIs. The effects of ddMVAC and GC on OS and CSS were assessed by pooled HRs and 95% CIs [21].
Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using chi-square and I2 tests. A Cochran Q statistic p-value < 0.05 or I2 statistic >50% was used to indicate statistically significant heterogeneity between trials [22].
Based on the degree of heterogeneity, either a random-effects or fixed-effects model was applied to calculate summary measures. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, provided there was evidence of heterogeneity [23]. In the event that at least 10 studies that investigated a particular outcome were included, funnel plots were to be used to assess small effects; however, fewer than 10 studies qualified for this review [24]. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 (RevMan, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013).

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Review Process

A study selection flowchart according to PRISMA guidelines is presented in Figure 1. The initial database search identified 3317 studies (940 in PubMed, 2121 in OVID-EMBASE, and 256 in Cochran library). Of these, 1457 studies remained for review after removing duplicates. Fifteen articles were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts. Full-text articles were analyzed based on pre-established inclusion criteria. Five studies [16,25,26,27,28], with a total of 1206 patients, were included in the final analysis (Table 1). One study was an RCT, while the others were retrospective case-control studies. Three studies were conducted in the United States, one in the Netherlands, and one in France. All trials enrolled patients diagnosed with MIBC who had undergone either GC or ddMVAC as NAC.

3.2. Quality Assessment

The results of the quality assessment based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool are shown in Table 2A. In the RCT, there was a bias of being an unblinded study. Since the schedule of chemotherapy was different, this seemed to be an unavoidable option. The results of the quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the nonrandomized studies are shown in Table 2B. Four studies received a score of seven points, indicating high quality.

3.3. Pathologic Complete Response Rate

Pathologic CR was observed in 35.2% (161/458) of the ddMVAC arm and in 25.1% (188/748) of the GC arm (p < 0.001 by Chi-square test) (Table 1). We conducted two analyses, as shown in Figure 2: one with four observational studies, and one with four observational studies and one RCT. In the former analysis (observational studies only), the pCR rate was not significantly different between the two regimens (OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 0.87–2.52; p = 0.15), and heterogeneity was found across studies (I2 statistic, 53%; Cochran Q statistic, p = 0.09). In the latter analysis (all studies), the pCR rate was higher in the ddMVAC group (OR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11–1.89; p = 0.006), and no between-study heterogeneity (I2 statistic, 43%; Cochran Q statistic, p = 0.14) was found.

3.4. Pathologic Downstaging Rate

The pDS rates of the ddMVAC and GC regimens were 57.2% (262/458) and 46.5% (348/748), respectively (p < 0.001 by Chi-square test) (Table 1). Two analyses were performed as described in item 3.3 (Figure 3). In the former analysis (observational studies only), there were no significant differences in pDS rate between the two regimens (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.62–2.41; p = 0.55), and there was heterogeneity across studies (I2 statistic, 76%; Cochran Q statistic, p = 0.005). The latter analysis (all studies) revealed no significant differences between the two regimens (OR = 1.37; 95% CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.20), and there was some between-study heterogeneity (I2 statistic, 70%; Cochran Q statistic, p = 0.01).

3.5. Overall Survival and Cancer-Specific Survival

OS and CSS outcomes between the two regimens are shown in Figure 4. Two studies were included in the OS analysis, and the results indicated that OS was higher in the ddMVAC group versus the GC group (overall HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.42–3.29; p = 0.0004; I2 statistic, 0%). Only one study reported CSS outcomes (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.29–4.13; p = 0.005).

4. Discussion

Since the Southwest Oncology Group reported a positive effect of NAC using MVAC for MIBC in 2003 [10], NAC before radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection has been used as the standard treatment for MIBC. A few years later, GC and ddMVAC regimens were established as the standard NAC treatments, with low morbidity, low toxicity, and good oncologic outcomes [12,13,14,29].
Various NAC regimens have been implemented in the past few years, and clinical trials on immune-oncology agents are underway [30,31,32]. Although studies on novel NAC treatments are ongoing, large-scale RCTs and long-term follow-up studies are lacking. Therefore, finding and evaluating optimal platinum-based NAC regimens for cisplatin-eligible MIBC patients is crucial.
A phase 3 RCT reported that ddMVAC caused more severe asthenia and gastrointestinal side effects than GC in perioperative chemotherapy, but elicited a significantly higher local control rate (pCR, pDR, or organ-confined tumors) in MICB patients [16]. However, this RCT has not yet reported long-term oncologic outcomes, such as OS, CSS, and progression-free survival [16]. In this respect, the present study helped identify an optimal platinum-based NAC regimen. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ddMVAC was superior to GC with regards to pCR and OS. In addition, considering that there was no detectable difference in toxicity profiles and tolerability between ddMVAC and GC [14,15,33], ddMVAC should be considered the standard of care for MIBC [14,15,33].
Our analysis of two retrospective studies showed that OS was better in the ddMVAC group. However, insufficient data on the long-term comparative oncological outcomes, such as OS, CSS, and progression-free survival, between ddMVAC and GC is a limitation. It is expected that an answer will be obtained through follow-up results from ongoing phase 3 RCTs. Meanwhile, we believe that the long-term oncological results will be better in the ddMVAC arm because ddMVAC is superior to GC regarding pCR. Previous studies reported that the prognosis in patients with pCR after NAC was good. Petrelli et al. conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether pCR after NAC was associated with an improved outcome in MIBC [29] and found that patients with pCR after NAC and radical cystectomy had a 55% lower risk of mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36–0.56; p < 0.00001) and an 81% lower risk of recurrence, compared with patients with pathologic residual disease (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09–0.39; p < 0.00001). A recent cohort study enrolled 1553 patients (314 with pCR and 1239 with pathologic residual disease) and found that patients with pCR had better OS than those without pCR and that the average HR for pathologic residual disease versus pCR was 4.56 (95% CI, 3.34–6.26) [34], suggesting that pCR following NAC improves survival in MIBC.
Nevertheless, there is controversy regarding the optimal number of cycles of ddMVAC in a neoadjuvant setting. No studies have compared the optimal cycles of ddMVAC. The results of four retrospective studies showed that pCR and pDS were 21.0–41.3% and 37.5–69.0%, respectively, after three to four cycles of ddMVAC [25,26,27,28] whereas, the RCT found that pCR and pDS were 42.2% and 63.3%, respectively, after a six-cycle course [16]. However, a six-cycle course may increase side effects, potentially delaying surgery. In addition, the longer the time period between NAC and radical cystectomy, the more the cancer progresses [35]. Therefore, improvement in pCR and pDS after six cycles of ddMVAC does not necessarily improve survival, and further research is needed to determine the ideal number of cycles of ddMVAC.
This study has limitations. First, the number of selected studies was small because few studies in the literature have compared the two regimens. Second, four studies were retrospective and were, therefore, prone to biases related to treatment allocation, grouping, and data collection. Notwithstanding, the retrospective studies included in our study were of high quality when evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. In addition, there were no studies showing significant differences between the two groups based on a table comparing the baseline characteristics of the ddMVAC group and the GC group in each study. Third, the results of OS and CSS should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of long-term follow-up studies. Despite these limitations, this study is the first meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC for NAC. We provide evidence that ddMVAC may be a better NAC treatment than GC in patients with MIBC. Additional well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm our conclusion.
Currently, studies on NAC responses in patients with variant histology or expression of specific biomarkers are in progress [36,37,38]. For instance, Miron et al. has reported that patients with mutations in ATM, RB1, or FANCC had a better response to NAC and improved long-term survival [37]. As mentioned earlier, NAC studies on immunotherapy are underway. In NAC for MIBC using immunotherapy, studies including ABACUS trial (atezolizumab) [32,39] and PURE-01 (pembrolizumab) [30] have been conducted. Although they have not yet published a large-scale phase 3 RCT study, they have shown good results in preliminary studies. In these studies, a patient’s pathologic response was found to be related to biomarker results. Although large-scale studies should be published in the future, these immunotherapy results may serve as the basis for individual, patient-specific treatments.

5. Conclusions

In our meta-analysis, ddMVAC was superior to GC with regards to pCR and OS, suggesting that ddMVAC is more effective than GC in NAC for MIBC. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of retrospective studies. Large-scale RCTs and long-term follow-up studies are warranted to validate these outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Y.C. and K.S.C.; methodology, D.Y.C., D.H.K. and K.S.C.; validation, J.S.H., K.S.C.; formal analysis, D.Y.C. and D.K.K.; data curation, D.Y.C., J.W.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Y.C.; writing—review and editing, K.S.C.; visualization, D.Y.C. and D.H.K.; supervision, K.S.C.; project administration, K.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bamias, A.; Dafni, U.; Karadimou, A.; Timotheadou, E.; Aravantinos, G.; Psyrri, A.; Xanthakis, I.; Tsiatas, M.; Koutoulidis, V.; Constantinidis, C.; et al. Prospective, open-label, randomized, phase III study of two dose-dense regimens MVAC versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with inoperable, metastatic or relapsed urothelial cancer: A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study (HE 16/03). Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med Oncol. 2013, 24, 1011–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mari, A.; Campi, R.; Tellini, R.; Gandaglia, G.; Albisinni, S.; Abufaraj, M.; Hatzichristodoulou, G.; Montorsi, F.; van Velthoven, R.; Carini, M.; et al. Patterns and predictors of recurrence after open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A comprehensive review of the literature. World J. Urol. 2018, 36, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Witjes, J.A.; Lebret, T.; Compérat, E.M.; Cowan, N.C.; de Santis, M.; Bruins, H.M.; Hernández, V.; Espinós, E.L.; Dunn, J.; Rouanne, M.; et al. Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 2017, 71, 462–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shariat, S.F.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Palapattu, G.S.; Lotan, Y.; Rogers, C.G.; Amiel, G.E.; Vazina, A.; Gupta, A.; Bastian, P.J.; Sagalowsky, A.I.; et al. Outcomes of radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: A contemporary series from the bladder cancer research consortium. J. Urol. 2006, 176, 2414–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stein, J.P.; Lieskovsky, G.; Cote, R.; Groshen, S.; Feng, A.-C.; Boyd, S.; Skinner, E.; Bochner, B.; Thangathurai, D.; Mikhail, M.; et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: Long-term results in 1054 patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 666–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zehnder, P.; Studer, U.E.; Skinner, E.C.; Thalmann, G.N.; Miranda, G.; Roth, B.; Cai, J.; Birkhäuser, F.D.; Mitra, A.P.; Burkhard, F.C.; et al. Unaltered oncological outcomes of radical cystectomy with extended lymphadenectomy over three decades. BJU Int. 2013, 112, E51–E58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Vale, C. Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2003, 361, 1927–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Garcia, J.A.; Dreicer, R. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer: Management and controversies. Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 2005, 2, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yin, M.; Joshi, M.; Meijer, R.P.; Glantz, M.; Holder, S.; Harvey, H.A.; Kaag, M.; van de Putte, E.E.F.; Horenblas, S.; Drabick, J.J. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and two-step meta-analysis. Oncologist 2016, 21, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Grossman, H.B.; Natale, R.B.; Tangen, C.M.; Speights, V.; Vogelzang, N.J.; Trump, D.L.; White, R.W.D.; Sarosdy, M.F.; Wood, D.P.; Raghavan, D.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Griffiths, G.; Canc, M.R.C.A.B.; Grp, N.B.C.S.; Tratamiento, C.U.E. International Phase III Trial Assessing Neoadjuvant Cisplatin, Methotrexate, and Vinblastine Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Long-Term Results of the BA06 30894 Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 2171–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Flaig, T.W.; Spiess, P.E.; Agarwal, N.; Bangs, R.; Boorjian, S.A.; Buyyounouski, M.K.; Chang, S.; Downs, T.M.; Efstathiou, J.A.; Friedlander, T.; et al. Bladder cancer, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2020, 18, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Von der Maase, H.; Sengelov, L.; Roberts, J.T.; Ricci, S.; Dogliotti, L.; Oliver, T.; Moore, M.J.; Zimmermann, A.; Arning, M. Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin, with Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, plus Cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 4602–4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Choueiri, T.K.; Jacobus, S.; Bellmunt, J.; Qu, A.; Appleman, L.J.; Tretter, C.; Bubley, G.J.; Stack, E.C.; Signoretti, S.; Walsh, M.; et al. Neoadjuvant dose-dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin with Pegfilgrastim Support in muscle-invasive urothelial cancer: Pathologic, radiologic, and biomarker correlates. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1889–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Plimack, E.R.; Hoffman-Censits, J.H.; Viterbo, R.; Trabulsi, E.J.; Ross, E.A.; Greenberg, R.E.; Chen, D.Y.; Lallas, C.D.; Wong, Y.-N.; Lin, J.; et al. Accelerated Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin is safe, effective, and efficient neoadjuvant treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Results of a multicenter phase II study with molecular correlates of response and toxicity. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1895–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pfister, C.; Gravis, G.; Fléchon, A.; Soulié, M.; Guy, L.; Laguerre, B.; Mottet, N.; Joly, F.; Allory, Y.; Harter, V.; et al. Randomized phase III trial of dose-dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin, or Gemcitabine and Cisplatin as perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Analysis of the GETUG/AFU V05 VESPER trial secondary endpoints: Chemotherapy toxicity and pathological responses. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Schardt, C.; Adams, M.B.; Owens, T.; Keitz, S.; Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2007, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C.; et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Stang, A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Parmar, M.K.; Torri, V.; Stewart, L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat. Med. 1998, 17, 2815–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Melsen, W.G.; Bootsma, M.C.J.; Rovers, M.M.; Bonten, M.J.M. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Higgins, J.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane. 2021. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current (accessed on 31 May 2021).
  25. Van de Putte, E.E.F.; Mertens, L.S.; Meijer, R.P.; van der Heijden, M.S.; Bex, A.; van der Poel, H.G.; Kerst, J.M.; Bergman, A.M.; Horenblas, S.; van Rhijn, B.W.G. Neoadjuvant induction dose-dense MVAC for muscle invasive bladder cancer: Efficacy and safety compared with classic MVAC and gemcitabine/cisplatin. World J. Urol. 2015, 34, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Peyton, C.C.; Tang, D.; Reich, R.R.; Azizi, M.; Chipollini, J.; Pow-Sang, J.M.; Manley, B.; Spiess, P.E.; Poch, M.A.; Sexton, W.J.; et al. Downstaging and survival outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens among patients treated with cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 1535–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zargar, H.; Shah, J.B.; van Rhijn, B.W.; Daneshmand, S.; Bivalacqua, T.J.; Spiess, P.E.; Black, P.C.; Kassouf, W. Neoadjuvant dose dense MVAC versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in patients with cT3-4aN0M0 bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 1452–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ruplin, A.T.; Spengler, A.M.; Montgomery, R.B.; Wright, J.L. Downstaging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer using neoadjuvant Gemcitabine and Cisplatin or dose-dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin as single regimens or as switch therapy modalities. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2020, 18, e557–e562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Petrelli, F.; Coinu, A.; Cabiddu, M.; Ghilardi, M.; Vavassori, I.; Barni, S. Correlation of Pathologic complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer treated with cystectomy: A meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2014, 65, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gao, J.; Navai, N.; Alhalabi, O.; Siefker-Radtke, A.; Campbell, M.T.; Tidwell, R.S.; Guo, C.C.; Kamat, A.M.; Matin, S.F.; Araujo, J.C.; et al. Neoadjuvant PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 blockade in patients with cisplatin-ineligible operable high-risk urothelial carcinoma. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1845–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Necchi, A.; Raggi, D.; Gallina, A.; Madison, R.; Colecchia, M.; Lucianò, R.; Montironi, R.; Giannatempo, P.; Farè, E.; Pederzoli, F.; et al. Updated results of PURE-01 with preliminary activity of neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma with variant histologies. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Powles, T.; Rodriguez-Vida, A.; Duran, I.; Crabb, S.J.; van der Heijden, M.S.; Font Pous, A.; Gravis, G.; Herranz, U.A.; Protheroe, A.; Ravaud, A.; et al. A phase II study investigating the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant Atezolizumab in muscle invasive bladder cancer (ABACUS). J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 4506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anari, F.; O’Neill, J.; Choi, W.; Chen, D.Y.; Haseebuddin, M.; Kutikov, A.; Dulaimi, E.; Alpaugh, R.K.; Devarajan, K.; Greenberg, R.E.; et al. Neoadjuvant dose-dense Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Results of a phase 2 trial. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2018, 1, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Waingankar, N.; Jia, R.; Marqueen, K.E.; Audenet, F.; Sfakianos, J.P.; Mehrazin, R.; Ferket, B.S.; Mazumdar, M.; Galsky, M.D. The impact of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on conditional survival among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2019, 37, 572.e21–572.e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ramakrishnan, V.M.; Eswara, J.R. The timing of radical cystectomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2018, 7, S758–S759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Daneshmand, S.; Nazemi, A. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Variant Histology Bladder Cancer: Current Evidence. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020, 6, 639–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Miron, B.; Hoffman-Censits, J.H.; Anari, F.; O’Neill, J.; Geynisman, D.M.; Zibelman, M.R.; Kutikov, A.; Viterbo, R.; Greenberg, R.E.; Chen, D.; et al. Defects in DNA Repair Genes Confer Improved Long-term Survival after Cisplatin-based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2020, 3, 544–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vetterlein, M.W.; Wankowicz, S.A.M.; Seisen, T.; Lander, R.; Loppenberg, B.; Chun, F.K.; Menon, M.; Sun, M.; Barletta, J.A.; Choueiri, T.K.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant histology. Cancer 2017, 123, 4346–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Powles, T.; Kockx, M.; Rodriguez-Vida, A.; Duran, I.; Crabb, S.J.; van der Heijden, M.S.; Szabados, B.; Pous, A.F.; Gravis, G.; Herranz, U.A.; et al. Clinical efficacy and biomarker analysis of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in operable urothelial carcinoma in the ABACUS trial. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1706–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 02770 g001 550
Figure 1. Study selection flowchart according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines.
Figure 1. Study selection flowchart according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines.
Cancers 13 02770 g001
Cancers 13 02770 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plots of pathologic complete response rates. (A): Observational studies only. (B): All studies.
Figure 2. Forest plots of pathologic complete response rates. (A): Observational studies only. (B): All studies.
Cancers 13 02770 g002
Cancers 13 02770 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plots of pathologic downstaging rates. (A): Observational studies only. (B): All studies.
Figure 3. Forest plots of pathologic downstaging rates. (A): Observational studies only. (B): All studies.
Cancers 13 02770 g003
Cancers 13 02770 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plots of survival outcomes. (A): Overall survival. (B): Cancer-specific survival.
Figure 4. Forest plots of survival outcomes. (A): Overall survival. (B): Cancer-specific survival.
Cancers 13 02770 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the eligible studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the eligible studies.
Authors
Year
Country		Study DesignStudy SummaryNAC RegimenTotal
Patients		pCRpDSOS
HR (95% CI)
p Value		CSS
HR (95% CI,
p Value)		Median
Follow Up
(95% CI or IQR)
No (%)p ValueNo (%)p Value
Van de Putte et al. [25]
2016
Netherlands		Retrospective
single-institutional		Comparisons of oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC or classic MVAC as NAC for ≥cT2 MIBC.
* This meta-analysis only analyzed comparitive data between ddMVAC and GC, excluding other data.		ddMVAC
4 cycle		8023 (28.75)0.84530 (37.50)NRNRNRNR
GC
4 cycle		5116 (31.37)22 (43.14)NRNRNR
Peyton et al. [26]
2018
USA		Retrospective,
single-institutional		Comparisons of oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC as NAC for ≥cT2 MIBC.ddMVAC
3–4 cycle		4619 (41.30)<0.00124 (52.17)0.020.42
(0.17–1.06)
p = 0.07		NR13.8 months
(12.3–16.1)
GC
3–4 cycle		20450 (24.51)92 (45.10)1NR
Zargar et al. [27]
2018
USA		Retrospective,
multi-institutional		Comparisons of oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC as NAC for ≥cT3 MIBC.ddMVAC
3–4 cycle		10028 (28.00)0.0169 (69.00)0.08111.8 years
(IQR 0.5–4.1)
GC
3–4 cycle		21932 (14.61)98 (44.75)2.07
(1.25–3.42)
p = 0.005		2.31
(1.29–4.13)
p = 0.005		1.2 years
(IQR 0.5–2.9)
Pfister et al. [16]
2020
France		Prospective,
multi-institutional		Comparisons of oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC as NAC for ≥cT2 MIBC.ddMVAC
6 cycle		19984 (42.21)0.021126 (63.32)0.007NRNRNR
GC
4 cycle		19871 (35.86)98 (49.49)NRNR
Ruplin et al. [28]
2020
USA		Retrospective,
single-institutional		Comparisons of oncologic outcomes between ddMVAC and GC or switch regimen as NAC for ≥cT2 MIBC.
* This meta-analysis only analyzed comparitive data between ddMVAC and GC, excluding other data.		ddMVAC
3–4 cycle		337 (21.21)0.6713 (39.39)0.31NRNRNR
GC
3–4 cycle		7619 (25.00)38 (50.50)NRNRNR
CI, confidence intervals; CSS, cancer-specific survival; ddMVAC, a dose-dense combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin; GC, gemcitabine, cisplatin; IQR, interquartile range; MIBC, muscle-invasive bladder cancer; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; NR, not reported; OS, overall survival; pCR, pathologic complete response; pDS, pathologic down-staging rate.
Table
Table 2. Results of quality assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
Table 2. Results of quality assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
A. Results of Quality Assessment of the Randomized Control Trial Using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool
Author(s)
(Year)		Random Sequence Generation
(Selection Bias)		Allocation Concealment (Selection Bias)Blinding of Participants and Personnel (Performance Bias)Blinding of Outcome Assessment
(Detection Bias)		Incomplete Outcome Data Addressed
(Attrition Bias)		Selective Reporting (Reporting Bias)Other bias
Pfister et al. [16]
(2020)		Low riskLow riskHigh riskHigh riskLow riskLow riskUnclear
B. Results of Quality Assessment of Nonrandomized Studies Using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
Author(s)
(Year)		Selection (4)Comparability (2)Exposure (3)Total score
Adequate definition
of cases		Representativeness
of cases		Selection of controlsDefinition of controlsControl for important factor
or additional factor		Ascertainment
of exposure		Same method
of ascertainment for cases and controls		Non-Response rate
Van de Putte
et al. [25]
(2016)		110121107
Peyton et al. [26]
(2018)		110121107
Zargar et al. [27]
(2018)		110121107
Ruplin et al. [28]
(2020)		110121107
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chung, D.Y.; Kang, D.H.; Kim, J.W.; Ha, J.S.; Kim, D.K.; Cho, K.S. Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin (ddMVAC) with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (GC) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2021, 13, 2770. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112770

AMA Style

Chung DY, Kang DH, Kim JW, Ha JS, Kim DK, Cho KS. Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin (ddMVAC) with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (GC) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2021; 13(11):2770. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112770

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chung, Doo Yong, Dong Hyuk Kang, Jong Won Kim, Jee Soo Ha, Do Kyung Kim, and Kang Su Cho. 2021. "Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin (ddMVAC) with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (GC) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 13, no. 11: 2770. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112770

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop