Enhanced Visualization Methods for First Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour in Suspected Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.

Q1 Medicine Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2021-08-12 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01
{"title":"Enhanced Visualization Methods for First Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour in Suspected Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bladder cancer begins in the innermost lining of the bladder wall and, on histological examination, is classified as one of two types: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) is the standard treatment for people with NMIBC, but the high rate of cancer recurrence after first TURBT is a challenge that physicians and patients face. Tumours seen during follow-up may have been missed or incompletely resected during first TURBT. TURBT is conventionally performed using white light to see the tumours. However, small papillary or flat tumours may be missed with the use of white light alone. With the emergence of new technologies to improve visualization during TURBT, better diagnostic and patient outcomes may be expected. We conducted a health technology assessment of two enhanced visualization methods, both as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people with suspected NMIBC-hexaminolevulinate hydrochloride (HAL), a solution that is instilled into the bladder to make tumours fluoresce under blue-violet light, and narrow band imaging (NBI), a technology that filters light into wavelengths that can be absorbed by hemoglobin in the tumours, making them appear darker. Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the budget impact of publicly funding these new technologies to improve patient outcomes following first TURBT. The use of NBI in diagnostic cystoscopy was out of scope for this health technology assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence from inception to April 15, 2020. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of first TURBT with the use of HAL or NBI, both as an adjunct to white light, with the outcomes of first TURBT using white light alone, or studies that made such comparison between HAL and NBI. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses using a fixed effects model where head-to-head comparisons were available. In the absence of any published RCT for comparison between HAL and NBI, we indirectly compared the two technologies through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 15-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HAL and NBI as an adjunct to white light in people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Ontario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the clinical evidence review, we identified 8 RCTs that used HAL or NBI as an adjunct to white light during first TURBT. Pairwise meta-analysis of HAL studies showed that HAL-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light significantly reduces recurrence rate at 12 months compared with TURBT using white light alone (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.95) (GRADE: Moderate). Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly higher when HAL was used as an adjunct to white light than when white light was used alone (GRADE: Moderate). There was little to no difference in the tumour progression rate (GRADE: Moderate).Meta-analysis of NBI studies did not show a significant difference between NBI-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light and TURBT using white light alone in reducing the rate of recurrence at 12 months (risk ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19) (GRADE: Moderate). No evidence on the effect on recurrence-free survival or tumour progression rate was identified for NBI-guided TURBT. The indirect estimate from the network analysis showed a trend toward a lower rate of recurrence after HAL-guided TURBT than after NBI-guided TURBT but the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.11) (GRADE: Low). Studies showed that use of HAL or NBI during TURBT was generally safe.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of HAL-guided TURBT compared with NBI-guided TURBT, both as an adjunct to white light, is $12,618 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with TURBT using white light alone and using adjunct NBI, the probability of HAL-guided TURBT being cost-effective is 69.1% at a willingness-to-pay value of $50,000 per QALY gained and 74.6% at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained. The annual budget impact of publicly funding HAL-guided TURBT in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from an additional $0.6 million in year 1 to $2.5 million in year 5.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>First TURBT guided by HAL as an adjunct to white light likely reduces the rate of recurrence at 12 months and increases 5-year recurrence-free survival when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. There is likely little to no difference in the tumour progression rate. First TURBT guided by NBI as an adjunct to white light likely results in little to no difference in the rate of recurrence at 12 months when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. Based on an indirect comparison, there may be little to no difference in cancer recurrence rate between HAL-guided and NBI-guided first TURBT. Use of HAL or NBI during first TURBT is generally safe. For people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, using HAL as an adjunct to white light is likely to be cost-effective compared with using white light alone or with using NBI as an adjunct to white light. We estimate that publicly funding HAL as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people in Ontario with suspected NMIBC would result in additional costs of between $0.6 million and $2.5 million per year over the next 5 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"21 12","pages":"1-123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8382283/pdf/ohtas-21-12.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bladder cancer begins in the innermost lining of the bladder wall and, on histological examination, is classified as one of two types: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) is the standard treatment for people with NMIBC, but the high rate of cancer recurrence after first TURBT is a challenge that physicians and patients face. Tumours seen during follow-up may have been missed or incompletely resected during first TURBT. TURBT is conventionally performed using white light to see the tumours. However, small papillary or flat tumours may be missed with the use of white light alone. With the emergence of new technologies to improve visualization during TURBT, better diagnostic and patient outcomes may be expected. We conducted a health technology assessment of two enhanced visualization methods, both as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people with suspected NMIBC-hexaminolevulinate hydrochloride (HAL), a solution that is instilled into the bladder to make tumours fluoresce under blue-violet light, and narrow band imaging (NBI), a technology that filters light into wavelengths that can be absorbed by hemoglobin in the tumours, making them appear darker. Our assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the budget impact of publicly funding these new technologies to improve patient outcomes following first TURBT. The use of NBI in diagnostic cystoscopy was out of scope for this health technology assessment.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence from inception to April 15, 2020. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the outcomes of first TURBT with the use of HAL or NBI, both as an adjunct to white light, with the outcomes of first TURBT using white light alone, or studies that made such comparison between HAL and NBI. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses using a fixed effects model where head-to-head comparisons were available. In the absence of any published RCT for comparison between HAL and NBI, we indirectly compared the two technologies through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 15-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HAL and NBI as an adjunct to white light in people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Ontario.

Results: In the clinical evidence review, we identified 8 RCTs that used HAL or NBI as an adjunct to white light during first TURBT. Pairwise meta-analysis of HAL studies showed that HAL-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light significantly reduces recurrence rate at 12 months compared with TURBT using white light alone (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.95) (GRADE: Moderate). Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly higher when HAL was used as an adjunct to white light than when white light was used alone (GRADE: Moderate). There was little to no difference in the tumour progression rate (GRADE: Moderate).Meta-analysis of NBI studies did not show a significant difference between NBI-guided TURBT as an adjunct to white light and TURBT using white light alone in reducing the rate of recurrence at 12 months (risk ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19) (GRADE: Moderate). No evidence on the effect on recurrence-free survival or tumour progression rate was identified for NBI-guided TURBT. The indirect estimate from the network analysis showed a trend toward a lower rate of recurrence after HAL-guided TURBT than after NBI-guided TURBT but the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.11) (GRADE: Low). Studies showed that use of HAL or NBI during TURBT was generally safe.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of HAL-guided TURBT compared with NBI-guided TURBT, both as an adjunct to white light, is $12,618 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with TURBT using white light alone and using adjunct NBI, the probability of HAL-guided TURBT being cost-effective is 69.1% at a willingness-to-pay value of $50,000 per QALY gained and 74.6% at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained. The annual budget impact of publicly funding HAL-guided TURBT in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from an additional $0.6 million in year 1 to $2.5 million in year 5.

Conclusions: First TURBT guided by HAL as an adjunct to white light likely reduces the rate of recurrence at 12 months and increases 5-year recurrence-free survival when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. There is likely little to no difference in the tumour progression rate. First TURBT guided by NBI as an adjunct to white light likely results in little to no difference in the rate of recurrence at 12 months when compared with first TURBT using white light alone. Based on an indirect comparison, there may be little to no difference in cancer recurrence rate between HAL-guided and NBI-guided first TURBT. Use of HAL or NBI during first TURBT is generally safe. For people undergoing their first TURBT for suspected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, using HAL as an adjunct to white light is likely to be cost-effective compared with using white light alone or with using NBI as an adjunct to white light. We estimate that publicly funding HAL as an adjunct to white light to guide first TURBT for people in Ontario with suspected NMIBC would result in additional costs of between $0.6 million and $2.5 million per year over the next 5 years.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经尿道首次膀胱肿瘤切除疑似非肌肉侵袭性膀胱癌的增强可视化方法:一项健康技术评估。
背景:膀胱癌始于膀胱壁最内层,组织学检查分为两种类型之一:非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)或肌肉浸润性膀胱癌。经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(turt)是NMIBC患者的标准治疗方法,但首次TURBT后的高肿瘤复发率是医生和患者面临的挑战。随访中发现的肿瘤可能在第一次TURBT中被遗漏或未完全切除。TURBT通常使用白光来观察肿瘤。然而,单独使用白光可能会遗漏小的乳头状或扁平肿瘤。随着新技术的出现,可以改善turt期间的可视化,可以预期更好的诊断和患者预后。我们对两种增强的可视化方法进行了健康技术评估,一种是作为白光的辅助,用于指导疑似nmibc患者的第一次TURBT -六检酰基磺酸盐酸盐(HAL),一种注入膀胱的溶液,使肿瘤在蓝紫光下发出荧光,另一种是窄带成像(NBI),一种将光过滤到可被肿瘤中的血红蛋白吸收的波长的技术,使它们看起来更暗。我们的评估包括评估有效性、安全性、成本效益和公共资助这些新技术改善首次TURBT后患者预后的预算影响。NBI在诊断性膀胱镜检查中的应用超出了本卫生技术评估的范围。方法:系统检索自成立至2020年4月15日的临床证据。我们检索了随机对照试验(rct),这些试验比较了首次TURBT与HAL或NBI(两者都作为白光辅助)的结果,与首次TURBT仅使用白光的结果,或HAL和NBI之间的比较研究。我们使用固定效应模型进行两两荟萃分析,其中可以进行头对头比较。在没有任何已发表的RCT比较HAL和NBI的情况下,我们通过间接处理比较(ITC)分析间接比较了两种技术。我们使用Cochrane风险偏倚工具评估每项纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们根据建议分级评估、发展和评价(GRADE)工作组标准评估了证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并从公共付款人的角度进行了15年时间范围的成本效用分析。我们还分析了公共资助HAL和NBI作为白光辅助治疗的预算影响,这些患者在安大略省因疑似非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌接受首次TURBT治疗。结果:在临床证据回顾中,我们确定了8项随机对照试验,在首次TURBT期间使用HAL或NBI作为白光辅助。HAL研究的成对荟萃分析显示,与单独使用白光的TURBT相比,HAL引导的TURBT作为白光辅助治疗可显著降低12个月的复发率(风险比0.70,95%可信区间[CI] 0.51-0.95) (GRADE: Moderate)。HAL作为白光辅助使用时,5年无复发生存率明显高于单独使用白光时(GRADE: Moderate)。肿瘤进展率几乎没有差异(GRADE: Moderate)。NBI研究的荟萃分析未显示NBI引导的TURBT作为白光辅助与单独使用白光的TURBT在降低12个月复发率方面存在显著差异(风险比0.94,95% CI 0.75-1.19) (GRADE: Moderate)。没有证据表明nbi引导的TURBT对无复发生存期或肿瘤进展率的影响。网络分析的间接估计显示,hal引导下的TURBT复发率低于nbi引导下的TURBT,但差异无统计学意义(风险比0.76,95% CI 0.51-1.11) (GRADE: Low)。研究表明,在TURBT期间使用HAL或NBI通常是安全的。hal引导的TURBT与nbi引导的TURBT相比,两者都是白光辅助,每个质量调整生命年(QALY)获得的增量成本效益比为12,618美元。与单独使用白光和辅助NBI的TURBT相比,hal引导的TURBT在每个QALY获得5万美元的支付意愿值时具有成本效益的概率为69.1%,在每个QALY获得10万美元的支付意愿值时具有成本效益的概率为74.6%。在未来5年,安大略省由hal指导的turt项目的年度预算影响从第一年的60万美元到第五年的250万美元不等。 结论:与单独使用白光的首次TURBT相比,HAL作为白光辅助的首次TURBT可能降低12个月的复发率,并增加5年无复发生存期。在肿瘤的进展速度上可能几乎没有差别。与单独使用白光的首次TURBT相比,NBI作为白光辅助指导的首次TURBT在12个月的复发率上可能几乎没有差异。基于间接比较,hal引导和nbi引导的首次TURBT的癌症复发率可能几乎没有差异。在第一次turt期间使用HAL或NBI通常是安全的。对于因疑似非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌而接受首次TURBT的患者,与单独使用白光或使用NBI作为白光辅助相比,使用HAL作为白光辅助可能更具成本效益。我们估计,公共资助HAL作为白光辅助,为安大略省疑似NMIBC患者提供首次TURBT指导,将在未来5年内每年产生60万至250万美元的额外费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment. Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Stress Urinary Incontinence, Fecal Incontinence, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Health Technology Assessment. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment. Sucrose Octasulfate-Impregnated Dressings for Adults With Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1