Objectives: To evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of updated individual patient data from all available randomised controlled trials comparing local treatment plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus the same local treatment alone.Results: Analyses were based on 491 patients from six trials, representing 90% of all patients randomised in cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy trials and 66% of patients from all eligible trials. The power of this meta-analysis is clearly limited. The overall hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.96, p = 0.019) suggests a 25% relative reduction in the risk of death for chemotherapy compared to that on control. Cox regression suggests that small imbalances in patient characteristics do not bias the results in favour of chemotherapy. However, the impact of trials that stopped early, of patients not receiving allocated treatments or not receiving salvage chemotherapy is less clear.Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis provides the best evidence currently available on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. However, at present there is insufficient evidence on which to reliably base treatment decisions. These results highlight the urgent need for further research into the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The results of appropriately sized randomised trials, such as the ongoing EORTC-30994 trial are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

This is the final analysis of EORTC GU Group Trial 30843 in which the treatment of advanced, metastatic prostate cancer with a combination of the LHRH agonist buserelin (nasal spray) and cyproterone acetate (Androcur), either continuously of only during the first 2 weeks, was compared with orchidectomy. There was no significant difference between the three arms as far as response rate, time to progression (subjective and objective) and duration of survival are concerned. Retrospective stratification according to the most important prognostic factors did not change the conclusions. Possible reasons for the difference with trial 30853, which used the same entry criteria but compared goserelin and flutamide with orchidectomy, are discussed. Reasons for using cyproterone acetate in combination treatment are the prevention of flare of the disease after LHRH agonists only and the prevention/reduction of toxicity in the form of hot flushes.

This prospective randomized phase III trial compares orchidectomy as standard androgen-deprivative therapy of advanced (metastatic) prostatic cancer with treatment using the LHRH agonist Buserelin® administered as nasal spray 3 daily doses of 400 μg, and combined with cyproterone acetate (CPA) 3 daily doses of 50 mg orally for 2 weeks initially to prevent flare-up of the disease, or continuously as complete androgen blockade. The trial was closed to entry in September 1989 when 367 patients were recruited. Patients were stratified for performance status (WHO) and metastatic status prior to randomization. According to patient and disease characteristics spreading of patients over the 3 arms was without statistical significant differences. Ineligibility was 5 and 4% of the patients were only partly evaluable. In March 1990 a first, preliminary analysis was performed. At that time 207 patients were off-study for progression or death and median follow-up was 1 yr. As to time-to-progression and survival there were no significant differences between the 3 arms. The meaning of this in regard to results of other trials with complete androgen blockade is discussed.