Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Bacilo de Calmette‐Guérin intravesical con interferón‐alfa versus bacilo de Calmette‐Guérin para el tratamiento del cáncer de vejiga sin invasión de la muscular

Appendices

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

  1. MeSH descriptor Urinary Bladder Neoplasms explode all trees

  2. (bladder* NEAR/3 (cancer* or carcinoma* or neoplas* or tumo?r* or tum?r*)):ti,ab,kw

  3. MeSH descriptor Carcinoma, Transitional Cell explode all trees

  4. (tcc or transitional cell):ti,ab,kw

  5. MeSH descriptor Ureteral Neoplasms explode all trees

  6. MeSH descriptor Urethral Neoplasms explode all trees

  7. ((bladder* or urethra* or ureter* or urin* or urotheli* or renal pelvis or calice*) NEAR/3 (cancer* or carcinoma* or adenoma* or adenocarcinoma* or squamous* or neoplas* or tumo?r* or tum?r* or malignan*)):ti,ab,kw

  8. (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7)

  9. MeSH descriptor BCG vaccine explode all trees

  10. bacillus calmette guerin:ti,ab,kw

  11. bcg:ti,ab,kw

  12. (#9 OR #10 OR #11)

  13. MeSH descriptor Interferons explode all trees

  14. ((interferon*) or (ifn alpha) or (ifn alfa)):ti,ab,kw

  15. (#13 OR #14)

  16. (#8 AND #12 AND #15)

Appendix 2. MEDLINE (OvidSP) search strategy

  1. exp urinary bladder neoplasms/

  2. (bladder$ adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or neoplas$ or tumo?r$ or tum?r$)).mp.

  3. exp carcinoma, transitional cell/

  4. (tcc or transitional cell).mp.

  5. exp ureteral neoplasms/

  6. urethral neoplasms/

  7. ((bladder$ or urethra$ or ureter$ or urin$ or urotheli$ or renal pelvis or calice$) adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or adenoma$ or adenocarcinoma$ or squamous$ or neoplas$ or tumo?r$ or tum?r$ or malignan$)).tw.

  8. or/1‐7

  9. exp BCG vaccine/

  10. bacillus calmette guerin.tw

  11. bcg.tw

  12. or/9‐11

  13. exp Interferons/

  14. interferon$.mp.

  15. (interferon alpha or interferon alfa).mp.

  16. or/13‐15

  17. randomized controlled trial.pt.

  18. controlled clinical trial.pt.

  19. randomized.ab.

  20. placebo.ab.

  21. clinical trials as topic.sh.

  22. randomly.ab.

  23. trial.ti.

  24. or/17‐23

  25. exp animals/ not humans.sh.

  26. 24 not 25

  27. 8 and 12 and 16 and 26

Appendix 3. Embase (OvidSP) search strategy

  1. exp bladder tumor/

  2. (bladder$ adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or neoplas$ or tumo?r$ or tum?r$)).mp.

  3. exp transitional cell carcinoma/

  4. (tcc or transitional cell).mp.

  5. exp ureter tumor/

  6. exp urethra tumor/

  7. ((bladder$ or urethra$ or ureter$ or urin$ or urotheli$ or renal pelvis or calice$) adj3 (cancer$ or carcinoma$ or adenoma$ or adenocarcinoma$ or squamous$ or neoplas$ or tumo?r$ or tum?r$ or malignan$)).tw.

  8. or/1‐7

  9. exp BCG vaccine/

  10. bacillus calmette guerin.ti,ab

  11. bcg.ti,ab

  12. or/9‐11

  13. exp INTERFERON

  14. interferon$.mp.

  15. (interferon alpha or interferon alfa).mp.

  16. or/13‐15

  17. crossover procedure/

  18. double‐blind procedure/

  19. randomized controlled trial/

  20. single‐blind procedure/

  21. (random$ or factorial$ or crossover$ or cross over$ or placebo$ or assign$ or allocat$ or volunteer$).mp.

  22. ((doubl$ or singl$) adj blind$).mp.

  23. or/17‐22

  24. 8 and 12 and 16 and 23

Appendix 4. ClinicalTrials.gov search strategy

Basic search:

(bladder OR urethra OR ureter OR urinary OR urothelial OR urologic OR renal pelvis) AND (bacillus calmette guerin OR bcg) AND (interferon OR ifn)

Appendix 5. WHO ICTRP search strategy

Simple search with each of these lines searched and assessed separately:

Bladder AND bcg AND ifn

Bladder AND bcg AND interferon

Bladder AND bacillus calmette guerin AND ifn

Bladder AND bacillus calmette guerin AND interferon

Study flow diagram (searched 14 March 2016, updated 25 August 2016).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram (searched 14 March 2016, updated 25 August 2016).

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 1 Time‐to‐recurrence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 1 Time‐to‐recurrence.

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 2 Recurrence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 2 Recurrence.

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 3 Progression.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 3 Progression.

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 4 Disease‐specific mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 4 Disease‐specific mortality.

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 5 Systemic or local adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 5 Systemic or local adverse events.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 1 Time‐to‐recurrence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 1 Time‐to‐recurrence.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 2 Time‐to‐progression.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 2 Time‐to‐progression.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 3 Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 3 Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 4 Disease‐specific mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 4 Disease‐specific mortality.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 5 Overall survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 5 Overall survival.

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 6 Systemic or local adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone, Outcome 6 Systemic or local adverse events.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Patient or population: patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

Intervention: BCG combined with IFN‐α

Comparison: BCG alone

Outcomes

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Risk with intravesically administered BCG alone

Risk difference with intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α

Recurrence

Follow‐up: median 38.3 to 60 months

925
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

RR 0.76
(0.44 to 1.32)

Study population

342 per 1000

82 fewer per 1000
(191 fewer to 109 more)

Progression

Follow‐up: median 38.3 to 60 months

219
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 4 5

RR 0.26
(0.04 to 1.87)

Study population

124 per 1000

92 fewer per 1000
(119 fewer to 108 more)

Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events ‐ not measured

Disease‐specific mortality

Follow‐up: median 60 months

99
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 6 7

RR 0.38
(0.05 to 3.05)

Study population

87 per 1000

54 fewer per 1000
(83 fewer to 178 more)

Disease‐specific quality of life ‐ not measured

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BCG: Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin; CI: confidence interval; IFN‐α: interferon‐alpha; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded for study limitations (‐1): high risk of bias: 'blinding of participants and personnel' (Nepple 2010); 'blinding of outcome assessment' (Nepple 2010); 'selective reporting' (Bercovich 1995; Minich 2009; Nepple 2010); 'other bias' (Bercovich 1995).
2Downgraded for heterogeneity (I2 = 74%).
3Downgraded for imprecision (‐1): wide 95% confidence interval around the pooled estimate which includes no effect.
4Downgraded for study limitations (‐1): high risk of bias: 'selective reporting' (Minich 2009).
5Downgraded for imprecision (‐1): wide 95% confidence interval around the pooled estimate which includes no effect.
6Downgraded for study limitations (‐1): unclear risk of bias overall (Chiong 2011).
7Downgraded for imprecision (‐2): wide 95% confidence interval around the pooled estimate which includes no effect, small sample size and few events.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer
Summary of findings 2. Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Patient or population: patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

Intervention: BCG alternating with IFN‐α

Comparison: BCG alone

Outcomes

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Risk with intravesically administered BCG alone

Risk difference with intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α

Time‐to‐recurrence

Follow‐up: median 8.6 to 10.3 years

205
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
LOW 1 2

HR 2.86
(1.98 to 4.13)

Study population

431 per 1000

370 more per 1000
(242 more to 471 more)

Time‐to‐progression

Follow‐up: median 8.6 to 10.3 years

205
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 3

HR 2.39
(0.92 to 6.21)

Study population

59 per 1000

76 more per 1000
(5 fewer to 255 more)

Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events

Follow‐up: median 8.6 to 10.3 years

205
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 3

RR 2.97
(0.31 to 28.09)

Study population

10 per 1000

19 more per 1000
(7 fewer to 266 more)

Disease‐specific mortality

Follow‐up: median 8.6 to 10.3 years

205
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 3

HR 2.74
(0.73 to 10.28)

Study population

29 per 1000

49 more per 1000
(8 fewer to 235 more)

Disease‐specific quality of life ‐ not measured

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BCG: Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; IFN‐α: interferon‐alpha; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded for study limitations (‐1): high risk of bias: 'blinding of participants and personnel', 'blinding of outcome assessment' (Jarvinen 2015).
2Downgraded for imprecision (‐1): wide 95% confidence interval.
3Downgraded for imprecision (‐1): wide 95% confidence interval around the pooled estimate which includes no effect.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α compared to intravesically administered BCG alone for treating non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer
Comparison 1. Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Time‐to‐recurrence Show forest plot

1

670

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.86, 1.43]

2 Recurrence Show forest plot

4

925

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.44, 1.32]

2.1 IFN‐α higher dose (50 MU) weekly for 6 weeks

1

670

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.93, 1.41]

2.2 IFN‐α lower dose (6 to 10 MU) weekly for 6 weeks

3

255

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.36, 0.94]

3 Progression Show forest plot

2

219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.04, 1.87]

4 Disease‐specific mortality Show forest plot

1

99

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.05, 3.05]

5 Systemic or local adverse events Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Any (including disorientation/delirium and macro haematuria)

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.13, 0.86]

5.2 Fever

1

670

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.22 [1.27, 3.91]

5.3 Constitutional symptoms

1

670

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.61 [1.10, 2.36]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone
Comparison 2. Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Time‐to‐recurrence Show forest plot

1

205

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.86 [1.98, 4.13]

2 Time‐to‐progression Show forest plot

1

205

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.39 [0.92, 6.21]

3 Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

205

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.97 [0.31, 28.09]

4 Disease‐specific mortality Show forest plot

1

205

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.74 [0.73, 10.28]

5 Overall survival Show forest plot

1

205

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.68, 1.47]

6 Systemic or local adverse events Show forest plot

1

205

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.41, 6.73]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α versus intravesically administered BCG alone