Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

The efficacy of BCG TICE and BCG Connaught in a cohort of 2,099 patients with T1G3 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064203%3A_____%2F16%3A10333364" target="_blank" >RIV/00064203:_____/16:10333364 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Nalezeny alternativní kódy

    RIV/00216208:11130/16:10333364

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.033" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.033</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.033" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.05.033</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    The efficacy of BCG TICE and BCG Connaught in a cohort of 2,099 patients with T1G3 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    Background Potential differences in efficacy of different bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) strains are of importance for daily practice, especially in the era of BCG shortage. Objective To retrospectively compare the outcome with BCG Connaught and BCG TICE in a large study cohort of pT1 high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. Design, setting, and participants Individual patient data were collected for 2,451 patients with primary T1G3 tumors from 23 centers who were treated with BCG for the first time between 1990 and 2011. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Using Cox multivariable regression and adjusting for the most important prognostic factors in this nonrandomized comparison, BCG Connaught and TICE were compared for time to recurrence, progression, and the duration of cancer specific survival and overall survival. Results and limitations Information on the BCG strain was available for 2,099 patients: 957 on Connaught and 1,142 on TICE. Overall, 765 (36%) patients received some form of maintenance BCG, 560 (59%) on Connaught and 205 (18%) on TICE. Without maintenance, Connaught was more effective than TICE only for the time to first recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.20-1.82; P<0.001). With maintenance, TICE was more effective than Connaught for the time to first recurrence (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.93; P = 0.019) with a trend for cancer specific survival (HR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14-0.92; P = 0.033). For time to progression and overall survival, Connaught and TICE had a similar efficacy. Compared to no maintenance therapy, maintenance BCG significantly reduced the risk of recurrence, progression and death, both overall, and disease specific, for TICE, but not for Connaught. Conclusions We found that BCG Connaught results in a lower recurrence rate as compared with BCG TICE when no maintenance is used. However, the opposite is true when maintenance is given.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    The efficacy of BCG TICE and BCG Connaught in a cohort of 2,099 patients with T1G3 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    Background Potential differences in efficacy of different bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) strains are of importance for daily practice, especially in the era of BCG shortage. Objective To retrospectively compare the outcome with BCG Connaught and BCG TICE in a large study cohort of pT1 high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. Design, setting, and participants Individual patient data were collected for 2,451 patients with primary T1G3 tumors from 23 centers who were treated with BCG for the first time between 1990 and 2011. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Using Cox multivariable regression and adjusting for the most important prognostic factors in this nonrandomized comparison, BCG Connaught and TICE were compared for time to recurrence, progression, and the duration of cancer specific survival and overall survival. Results and limitations Information on the BCG strain was available for 2,099 patients: 957 on Connaught and 1,142 on TICE. Overall, 765 (36%) patients received some form of maintenance BCG, 560 (59%) on Connaught and 205 (18%) on TICE. Without maintenance, Connaught was more effective than TICE only for the time to first recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.20-1.82; P<0.001). With maintenance, TICE was more effective than Connaught for the time to first recurrence (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.93; P = 0.019) with a trend for cancer specific survival (HR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14-0.92; P = 0.033). For time to progression and overall survival, Connaught and TICE had a similar efficacy. Compared to no maintenance therapy, maintenance BCG significantly reduced the risk of recurrence, progression and death, both overall, and disease specific, for TICE, but not for Connaught. Conclusions We found that BCG Connaught results in a lower recurrence rate as compared with BCG TICE when no maintenance is used. However, the opposite is true when maintenance is given.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>x</sub> - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

  • CEP obor

    FD - Onkologie a hematologie

  • OECD FORD obor

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2016

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

  • ISSN

    1078-1439

  • e-ISSN

  • Svazek periodika

    34

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    11

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    US - Spojené státy americké

  • Počet stran výsledku

    7

  • Strana od-do

    "e19"-"e25"

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    000392642100010

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-84994155858