Authors

Objective

Study type

Results

Yafi et al. [14]

Role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with UTUC treated by RNU

retrospective

OS: P = 0.8800

Necchi et al. [15]

Analyse the outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation
after RNU

Joint study

OS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02–1.54)

Jazayeri et al.[21]

Comparison of adjuvant chemotherapy for UTUC versus LTUC

meta-analysis

DFS (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.1–0.93)
CSS (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.56–0.90)
OS (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.69–1.10)

Quhal et al.[16]

Efficacy of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for UTUC

meta-analysis

MFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55–0.76, p<0.001)
CSS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.77, p<0.001)
OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.90, p < 0.001)

Leow JJ et al.[17]

Role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for UTUC patients.

meta-analysis

OS HR 0.43 (95% CI, 0.21–0.89; p = 0.023)
DFS HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.24–0.99; p = 0.048)

Luo Y et al.[18]

Outcomes of RNU combined with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high risk UTUC

prospective

PFS [P = 0.0033, HR = 3.78 (3.13–4.55)],
OS [P = 0.0397, HR = 1.39 (1.01–1.75)]
CSS [P = 0.0255, HR = 1.26 (1.07–1.45)]

Seisen et al.[19]

Effectiveness of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After RNU for Locally Advanced and/or Positive Regional Lymph Node UTUC

retrospective

OS (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.88]; P , .001)

Birtle A et al.[23]

Adjuvant chemotherapy in UTUC (the POUT trial)

phase 3, open label, randomized controlled trial

DFS (HR = 0·45, 95% CI 0·30–0·68; p=0·0001)
OS (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.47-1.08; p = 0.11)

Bellmunt et al.[3]

Adjuvant atezolizumab high-risk muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma after RNU (IMvigor010)

phase 3, open label, randomized controlled trial

DFS HR = 1.25 (95% CI 0.57-2.74)

Bajorin et al.[24]

Adjuvant nivolumab high-risk muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma after RNU (CheckMate 274)

phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

For UTUC patients: DFS HR = 1.23 (CI 95% 0.67-2.23)