Impact of Prior Platinum-Based Therapy on Patients Receiving Salvage Systemic Treatment for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Trials of salvage therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma have required prior platinum-based therapy. This practice requires scrutiny because non-platinum-based first-line therapy may be offered to cisplatin-ineligible patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of patients receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy were collected. Data on prior first-line platinum exposure were required in addition to treatment-free interval, hemoglobin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, albumin, and liver metastasis status. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate their association with overall survival (OS) after accounting for salvage single-agent or combination chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 455 patients previously exposed to platinum-based therapy and 37 not exposed to platinum. In the group exposed to prior platinum therapy, salvage therapy consisted of a single-agent taxane (n = 184) or a taxane-containing combination chemotherapy (n = 271). In the group not exposed to prior platinum therapy, salvage therapy consisted of taxane or vinflunine (n = 20), 5-fluorouracil (n = 1), taxane-containing combination chemotherapy (n = 12), carboplatin-based combinations (n = 2), and cisplatin-based combinations (n = 2). The median OS for the prior platinum therapy group was 7.8 months (95% confidence interval, 7.0, 8.1), and for the group that had not received prior platinum therapy was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval, 6.0, 11.0; P = .50). In the multivariable analysis, prior platinum therapy versus no prior platinum exposure did not confer an independent impact on OS (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.75, 1.64; P = .62).

CONCLUSION

Prior platinum- versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy did not have a prognostic impact on OS after accounting for major prognostic factors in patients receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Lack of prior platinum therapy should not disqualify patients from inclusion onto trials of salvage therapy.

[Epigenetics in urothelial cancer: Pathogenesis, improving diagnostics and developing novel treatment options]

Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is a common tumor for which improvements in diagnostic markers and new therapy approaches, in addition to or combined with standard chemotherapy, are urgently required. Epigenetic alterations could provide both novel diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets as they are emerging as crucial factors in the development and progression of this tumor type, likely contributing to altered differentiation and metastatic potential. These alterations affect DNA methylation, histone modifications, chromatin remodeling, long noncoding RNAs, and microRNAs. Factors involved in histone modifications and chromatin remodeling appear to be particularly frequently inactivated by mutations. Thus, histone-modifying enzymes may represent good targets for rational new therapeutic approaches, although thorough investigation of their complex functions is a prerequisite. DNA methylation changes and altered miRNA expression provide promising biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis that need further validation in comprehensive and well-standardized studies.

Impact of prior platinum on patients receiving salvage systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC)

386

Background: Trials of salvage therapy for advanced UC have required prior platinum-based therapy. This practice requires scrutiny since non-platinum-based first-line therapy may be offered to cisplatin-ineligible patients (pts). We examined the impact of prior exposure to first-line platinum vs. non-platinum based chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) with salvage systemic chemotherapy. Methods: Data of pts receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy were collected retrospectively or from trials. Data on prior first-line platinum exposure were required in addition to the known prognostic factors: treatment free interval, hemoglobin, performance status, albumin and liver metastasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate their association with OS after accounting for salvage therapy with single agent chemotherapy or combination chemotherapy. Results: Data was obtained from 455 pts exposed to prior platinum and 37 pts not exposed to prior platinum. In the group exposed to prior platinum, salvage therapy consisted of a single agent taxane (n = 184) and taxane containing combination chemotherapy (n = 271). In the group not exposed to prior platinum, salvage therapy consisted of single agent taxane or vinflunine (n = 20), single agent 5-fluorouracil (n = 1), taxane containing combination chemotherapy (n = 12), carboplatin-based combinations (n = 2) and cisplatin-based combinations (n = 2). The median OS for the prior platinum group was 7.8 (95% CI: 7.0, 8.1) months (mo), and for the prior non-platinum group was 9.0 (6.0, 11.0) mo (p = 0.50). In a multivariable analysis including major prognostic factors and after controlling for single agent or combination salvage chemotherapy, prior platinum vs. no prior platinum exposure conferred no independent impact on OS (HR 1.10 [0.75, 1.64], p = 0.62). Conclusions: Prior platinum vs. non-platinum based chemotherapy did not confer a prognostic impact on OS after accounting for major prognostic factors in pts receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy for advanced UC. Lack of exposure to prior platinum should not disqualify pts from inclusion in trials of salvage therapy after accounting for the 5 known prognostic factors.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in patients with localized urinary tract tumors (UTT)

422

Background: VTE is common in cancer patients, but there is limited data in patients with UTT. We previously demonstrated that non-urothelial histology, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors or renal dysfunction increased VTE risk in metastatic UTT. In this study, we assessed the frequency and risk factors for VTE in localized disease. Methods: Data was collected via an electronic data capture platform from 29 centers. Patients diagnosed with < cT2, > N1, or M1 disease at diagnosis were excluded. Patients without a date of diagnosis, last follow up, or VTE data were excluded. Cumulative, unadjusted VTE incidence was calculated from time of diagnosis, excluding VTEs diagnosed in the metastatic setting. Chi-squared analyses were used to assess differences in VTE rates for various patient, therapy, and tumor-related factors. Significant covariates were incorporated into a multivariate, logistic regression model. Results: 1131 patients were eligible for analysis. Perioperative chemotherapy was utilized in 46.9% (530/1131) of patients. 70.8% (801/1131) underwent definitive surgical intervention. There were 64 VTEs (cumulative incidence 5.7%). Treatment with chemotherapy (p = 0.609) or surgery (p = 0.886) did not increase VTE risk. In the univariate analysis, non-urothelial histology (p = 0.025), CVD or CVD risk factors (p = 0.004), renal dysfunction (p = 0.023), and radiation to the primary tumor (p = 0.048) were statistically significant factors. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that non-urothelial histology and CVD or CVD risk factors were associated with increased VTE risk (table). Conclusions: The VTE incidence of 5.7% in localized disease is lower than our previously reported rate in the metastatic setting (8.2%). Consistent with our findings in metastatic UTT, non-urothelial histology and CVD or CVD risk factors increase VTE risk in localized disease. Additional analyses to control for baseline demographics in patients treated with surgery and chemotherapy will be performed. [Table: see text]

Single-agent Taxane Versus Taxane-containing Combination Chemotherapy as Salvage Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Single-agent taxanes are commonly used as salvage systemic therapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC).

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of combination chemotherapy delivering a taxane plus other chemotherapeutic agents compared with single-agent taxane as salvage therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Individual patient-level data from phase 2 trials of salvage systemic therapy were used.

INTERVENTIONS

Trials evaluating either single agents (paclitaxel or docetaxel) or combination chemotherapy (taxane plus one other chemotherapeutic agent or more) following prior platinum-based therapy were used.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Information regarding the known major baseline prognostic factors was required: time from prior chemotherapy, hemoglobin, performance status, albumin, and liver metastasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of prognostic factors and combination versus single-agent chemotherapy with overall survival (OS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Data were available from eight trials including 370 patients; two trials (n=109) evaluated single-agent chemotherapy with docetaxel (n=72) and cremophor-free paclitaxel (n=37), and six trials (n=261) evaluated combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine-paclitaxel (two trials, with n=99 and n=24), paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide (n=32), paclitaxel-ifosfamide-nedaplatin (n=45), docetaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin (n=26), and paclitaxel-epirubicin (n=35). On multivariable analysis after adjustment for baseline prognostic factors, combination chemotherapy was independently and significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio: 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.82; p=0.001). The retrospective design of this analysis and the trial-eligible population were inherent limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients enrolled in trials of combination chemotherapy exhibited improved OS compared with patients enrolled in trials of single-agent chemotherapy as salvage therapy for advanced UC. Prospective randomized trials are required to validate a potential role for rational and tolerable combination chemotherapeutic regimens for the salvage therapy of advanced UC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This retrospective study suggests that a combination of chemotherapy agents may extend survival compared with single-agent chemotherapy in selected patients with metastatic urothelial cancer progressing after prior chemotherapy.

Impact of first-line cisplatin versus non-cisplatin based chemotherapy on progression-free survival in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma previously treated with perioperative cisplatin based chemotherapy

335

Background: Perioperative cisplatin based chemotherapy (PCBC) is a standard of care in the management of muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma (UC). Cisplatin based (C) therapy also represents the historical first line treatment of metastatic disease. There is however no data to guide the optimal choice of first line chemotherapy regimen – C re-treatment vs other second-line or non cisplatin regimens (NC) –in UC patients who relapse after receiving PCBC. This multicenter retrospective study compares C vs NC first line treatment on progression-free survival (PFS) for patients (pts) with advanced UC after PCBC and cystectomy. Methods: Data were collected for patients who received various first-line chemotherapies for advanced UC following previous PCBC therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the prognostic ability of type of peri-operative / first-line chemotherapy, visceral metastasis, ECOG status, time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC), anemia, leukocytosis and albumin on PFS. Results: Data were available for 145 pts from 12 centers. The mean age was 62 years, 113 (77.9%) were men and ECOG-PS was 0 or >0 in 74 (51.0%) and 61 (42.0%) patients. Ninety-one (62.8%) pts received C first line, the median number of cycles was 4 (range 1-17) and the median TFPC was 6.2 months (range 1-154). Median overall survival was 86 weeks (95% CI 70-106) and median PFS was 24 (95% CI 18-27) weeks. Time from perioperative chemotherapy (TFPC) (>52 weeks vs ≤52 weeks; HR 0.63 p=0.027) and ECOG-PS at first line (1+ vs 0; HR 1.73 p=0.010), were prognostic of PFS. No significant effect was noted for C vs NC first line (p=0.70); however, among patients with TFPC >52 weeks, patients with NC had worse PFS (median 4.6 months, 95% CI 1.8-12.2) than those who received C (median 8.1, 95% CI 3.2-16.3). Conclusions: There is no evidence to suggest overall superiority of C vs NC based first line chemotherapy or a second-line regimen in patients with advanced UC who received prior PCBC. However, those with TFPC >52 weeks should probably receive C first line chemotherapy given better PFS with C.

Safety of cisplatin in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) and renal dysfunction

321

Background: Patients (pts) with UC and creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 60 ml/min are considered cisplatin-ineligible. Since the safety of cisplatin use in patients with CrCl < 60 has not been comprehensively studied, we conducted a retrospective study in this population. Methods: Data were requested and retrospectively collected from 5 collaborating institutions. All patients had stage 2 or higher UC and CrCl < 60. Patient characteristics including age, sex, indication for chemotherapy (neoadjuvant, adjuvant or metastatic disease), schedule, total dose of cisplatin, adverse effects, renal function, blood cell counts and radiologic tumor response were collected. Descriptive statistics were employed with no baseline assumptions. Results: 104 patients were evaluable with a mean age of 63.7+ 8.1 yrs (range 41-77yrs) and 63.5% (n=66) were men. Mean CrCl by Cockroft-Gault formula was 50.8 + 8.0 ml/min (range 26-59 ml/min). Baseline ECOG performance status was 0 in 71.8% (n=74); 1 in 20.3% (n=21) and 2 in 7.8% (n=8) of patients. 40.4% (n=42) received chemotherapy for metastatic disease and the rest received perioperative chemotherapy. Of the patients with metastatic disease, 7.1% patient had complete response (CR), 40.5 % patients had partial response. Mean total dose of cisplatin used in all patients was 414.32±198.01 mg, with 81.7% (n=85) patients receiving ≥70mg/m2 dose per cycle. Percentage of patients with any toxicity with baseline CrCl <45 and >45 were 43.5% and 39.5%, respectively (p=0.81). Neutropenic infection occurred in 16.3% and thrombocytopenic bleed in 8.6%. Grade 3 renal toxicity was seen in only one patient (0.96%) and no toxic deaths were reported. Conclusions: This retrospective clinical experience in pts with UC with CrCl <60 ml/min and mostly ECOG-PS 0-1 suggests that cisplatin-based chemotherapy is feasible and warrants exploration given CRs induced in metastatic disease. Incorporation of prophylactic growth factors and modified schedules may mitigate myelosuppression.

Improved prognostic classification of patients receiving salvage systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma

311

Background: Previously identified prognostic factors in patients (pts) receiving salvage systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) include performance status (PS), liver metastasis (LM), hemoglobin (Hb) and time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC). Given the prognostic impact of peripheral blood neutrophils (N), lymphocytes (L), thrombocytes (T) and albumin (Alb) in other malignancies, we investigated their impact in the salvage setting of advanced UC. Methods: Phase II trials of salvage systemic therapy were utilized. Data on N, L, T and Alb were required in addition to TFPC, Hb, PS and LM status. N, L, T and Alb were categorized as normal, <lower limit of normal (LLN) and >upper limit of normal (ULN). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate their association with overall survival (OS). An optimal regression model was constructed using forward stepwise selection and risk groups defined using number of identified adverse risk factors. Trial was a stratification factor. Results: Data was obtained from 10 trials accruing 708 pts. Of these, 682 pts had available TFPC, Hb, PS and LM status, while 631, 554, 649 and 491 had N, L, T and Alb available. Median OS was 6.8 (95% CI: 6.0-7.0) months. Neutrophilia (N>ULN), thrombocytosis (T>ULN) and hypoalbuminemia (Alb <LLN) were significant poor prognostic factors for OS on univariate analyses. After adjustment for TFPC <3 months, Hb <10 g/dl, PS >0 and LM status, only thrombocytosis and hypoalbuminemia remained significant (Table). Risk groups were constructed. Median OS was 8.8, 6.3, 5.0 and 3.8 months for n=290, 220, 123 and 49 patients with 0-1, 2, 3 and ≥4 factors. This 6-factor prognostic model was internally validated with an improvement in the c-index from 0.564 to 0.590. Conclusions: The addition of hypoalbuminemia and thrombocytosis to TFPC, Hb, PS and LM status enhanced the prognostic risk groupings in pts receiving salvage systemic therapy for advanced UC. [Table: see text]

Impact of chemotherapy (CTX) on venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prognostic implications in patients with metastatic urinary tract tumors (UTT)

318

Background: VTE is common in cancer patients (incidence rate estimates 1-10%) and a leading cause of mortality in those receiving CTX. Little is known about the risk of VTE in patients with metastatic UTT. Understanding the frequency of VTE, whether CTX portends higher risk and impact on prognosis is of relevance. Methods: Data was collected via an electronic data capture platform from 25 centers. Patients diagnosed with metastatic UTT were eligible. Patients without a known date of diagnosis, last follow up, or VTE data were excluded. First-line treatment regimen was divided into 6 groups (Table). Cumulative and 90-day from metastatic disease diagnosis unadjusted VTE incidence rates were calculated. The impact of patient, therapy and tumor related factors were analyzed. A multivariate, competing risk regression was utilized to compute subdistribution hazard ratios (HR) of VTE risk for each treatment group. A VTE patient was matched to 4 non-VTE patients to carry out Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cases and controls were matched on survival from date of diagnosis of metastatic disease to date of VTE diagnosis and age group. Results: 1,762 patients were eligible. There were 144 (8.2%) and 60 (3.4%) events cumulative and within the first 90 days, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that non-urothelial histology and history of vascular disease were associated with increased risk. The HR for VTE based on treatment group, adjusted for covariates, is shown in the table. Overall survival was significantly worse in patients with VTE (p = 0.01). Conclusions: In metastatic UTT patients, there was no difference in VTE risk between CTX regimens. Development of VTE has negative impact on survival. [Table: see text]

Cisplatin-based first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma after previous perioperative cisplatin-based therapy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes with cisplatin-based first-line therapy for advanced UC after previous perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy are unclear. In this study we evaluated outcomes with a focus on the effect of time from previous cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected for patients who received cisplatin-based first-line therapy for advanced UC after previous perioperative cisplatin-based therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the prognostic ability of visceral metastasis, ECOG PS, TFPC, anemia, leukocytosis, and albumin on overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Data were available for 41 patients from 8 institutions including 31 men (75.6%). The median age was 61 (range, 41-77) years, most received gemcitabine plus cisplatin (n = 26; 63.4%), and the median number of cycles was 4 (range, 1-8). The median OS was 68 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 48.0-81.0). Multivariable Cox regression analysis results showed an independent prognostic effect on OS for PS > 0 versus 0 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.56 [95% CI, 1.66-12.52]; P = .003) and TFPC ≥ 78 weeks versus < 78 weeks (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.21-1.07]; P = .072). The prognostic model for OS was internally validated with c-index = 0.68. Patients with TFPC < 52 weeks, 52 to 104 weeks, and ≥ 104 weeks had median survival of 42, 70, and 162 weeks, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Longer TFPC ≥ 78 weeks and ECOG PS = 0 were independently prognostic for better survival with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced UC after previous perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The data support using TFPC ≥ 52 weeks to rechallenge with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Impact of number of lines of prior chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) receiving salvage therapy

353

Background: The prognostic impact of number of lines of prior chemotherapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy on survival results in salvage trials for advanced UC is unknown. Methods: We pooled 10 prospective phase II trials of salvage therapy for advanced UC with data on the number of prior lines of therapy in addition to known prognostic factors: TFPC (time from prior chemotherapy), Hb (hemoglobin), PS (performance status), and LM (liver metastasis) status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of number of prior lines with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Trial was included as a stratification factor. Sub-analysis examined the impact of prior perioperative chemotherapy. Results: Of 731 pts, data for all factors was available for 711. The overall median PFS and OS were 2.7 and 6.8 months, respectively. Trials evaluated vinflunine (N=151), docetaxel +/- vandetanib (N=147), paclitaxel-gemcitabine (N=83), sunitinib (N=77), nab-paclitaxel (N=48), volasertib (N=46), everolimus (N=45), pazopanib (N=43), cetuximab +/-paclitaxel (N=39) and paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide (N=32). The number of prior lines of therapy were 1 in 559 (78.6%), 2 in 111 (15.6%), 3 in 29 (4.1%), 4 in 10 (1.4%) and 5 in 2 (0.3%) pts. Prior perioperative chemotherapy was given to 277 (39.1%) and chemotherapy for metastatic disease to 454 (64.1%) pts. While TFPC, Hb, PS and LM were significantly associated with OS and PFS on multivariate analyses, the number of prior lines was not associated with OS (HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.86-1.14]) or PFS (0.92 [0.80-1.05]). Prior peri-operative chemotherapy was a favorable factor for both OS and PFS on univariable but not multivariable analysis. Conclusions: The number of prior lines of therapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy were not independently prognostic for OS or PFS in UC pts receiving salvage therapy, although the data are limited by few pts with >2 prior regimens. We infer that interpretation of OS and PFS results in salvage therapy trials will not be affected by inclusion of pts with ≥ 2 prior regimens including perioperative and/or metastatic disease treatment. These data need external validation.

Impact of prior platinum agent and site of primary in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) receiving salvage therapy

336

Background: The prognostic impact of prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) and site of primary (bladder vs. other) in the context of salvage therapy for advanced UC is unknown. Methods: We pooled 10 prospective phase II trials of ≥ second-line therapy for advanced UC with data recorded for prior platinum agent and site of primary in addition to major prognostic factors: TFPC (time from prior chemotherapy), Hb (hemoglobin), PS (performance status), and LM (liver metastasis) status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of prior platinum agent and site of primary with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Trial was included as a stratification factor throughout. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. Results: Of 731 patients overall, 559 had received one prior chemotherapy regimen, 663 were evaluable for prior platinum regimen and 512 for site of primary. The overall median PFS and OS were 2.7 and 6.8 months, respectively. The trials evaluated vinflunine (N=151), docetaxel +/- vandetanib (N=148), paclitaxel-gemcitabine (N=98), sunitinib (N=77), volasertib (N=50), nab-paclitaxel (N=48), everolimus (N=45), pazopanib (N=43), cetuximab +/-paclitaxel (N=39) and paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide (N=32). Prior platinum was cisplatin in 501 (75.6%) and carboplatin in the rest. Prior carboplatin was associated with worse OS on univariate analysis (HR 1.23 [1.00-1.52], P=0.048) but not significantly associated with either OS or PFS on multivariate analysis. Bladder was the site of primary in 388 (75.8%). The site of primary was not significantly associated with PFS and OS in either univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Neither prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) nor site of primary (bladder vs. other) were independently associated with OS or PFS in patients receiving salvage therapy for advanced UC. Trials of salvage therapy may continue to utilize the previously recognized prognostic factors, and could allow patients with all sites of primary disease and regardless of the prior platinum agent. These data need external validation.

Impact of response to prior chemotherapy (RTPC) on outcomes in second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC): Implications for trial design

4539

Background: Performance status (PS), hemoglobin (Hb), liver metastasis (LM), and time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC) are significant prognostic factors in second-line therapy for advanced UC. Setting of prior chemotherapy, i.e., metastatic or perioperative, has not appeared significant. However, the impact of prior chemosensitivity is unclear, which may confound trial interpretation. Hence, we examined the prognostic impact of RTPC, when prior therapy was given for metastatic disease. Methods: Six phase II trials evaluating second-line chemotherapy and/or biologics (n=504) were pooled. Patients who received prior therapy for metastatic disease were eligible for analysis if data regarding Hb, LM, PS, and TFPC were available. Response by RECIST to first-line therapy was recorded. Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of registration using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 275 pts were evaluable for analysis. Patients received gemcitabine-paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide-paclitaxel, pazopanib, docetaxel plus vandetanib/placebo or vinflunine (2 trials). Those with prior response (n=111) had a median (95% CI) OS of 8.0 (6.8-9.4) months (mo) and PFS of 3.0 (2.6-4.0), compared with OS and PFS of 5.9 (5.0-6.6) mo and 2.6 (2.0-2.8) for those without prior response (n=164). Multivariable analysis did not reveal an independent impact of RTPC on PFS or OS (Table). Conclusions: RTPC in patients receiving prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease did not confer an independent prognostic impact with second-line therapy for advanced UC. Patients who received prior chemotherapy in peri-operative or metastatic settings may be enrolled in the same second-line trial stratified for PS, anemia, LM and TFPC. [Table: see text]

Treatment patterns and outcomes in “real world” patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial cancer (UC)

4525

Background: Most studies reporting outcomes of pts with metastatic UC are derived from clinical trial data, potentially limiting the breadth/generalizability of the findings. To explore patterns of care/outcomes in “real world” pts, we initiated an international retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data were collected via an electronic data capture platform from 23 centers. Eligible pts had UC (at least muscle-invasive) and were initially evaluated from 1/1/2006-1/1/2011. Parameters were subjected to regression analysis to identify prognostic variables. Results: By 12/18/12, 1905 pts were enrolled. Among 1077 with metastatic UC, median age was 67 (IQR 60-75), 80% were male, 87% had bladder primary tumors, and 33% received perioperative chemotherapy. Only 758 (70%) received 1st-line chemotherapy for metastatic UC: cisplatin-based (51%), carboplatin-based (29%), non-platinum single-agent (16%), and non-platinum multi-agent (4%). The median survival from date of diagnosis of metastatic UC was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.4-6.5) and 16.1 months (95% CI 15.1-17.5) for pts who did and did not receive 1st-line chemotherapy, respectively [13.9 months (95% CI 12.78-14.98) from start of chemotherapy for latter group]. Among pts receiving 1st-line chemotherapy, univariable analysis revealed gender, primary tumor site, removal of primary, creatinine clearance, LDH, and hgb were not significantly associated with survival whereas smoking status, performance status, perioperative chemotherapy, metastatic sites, study site and chemotherapy regimen were. The multivariable analysis is shown in the Table. Conclusions: The current analysis identifies previously unrecognized prognostic factors in an international cohort of “real world” pts with metastatic UC treated with 1st-line chemotherapy. A large subset of pts with metastatic UC receives no chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

Nomogram to estimate the activity of second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC)

4524

Background: Prognostic factors may impact on endpoints used in phase II trials of second-line therapy for advanced UC. We aimed to study the impact of prognostic factors (liver metastasis [LM], anemia [Hb<10 g/dl], ECOG-performance status [PS] ≥1, time from prior chemotherapy [TFPC]) on PFS6 and RR. Methods: Twelve phase II trials evaluating second-line chemotherapy and/or biologics (n=748) in patients with progressive disease were pooled. PFS was defined as tumor progression or death from any cause. PFS6 was defined from the date of registration and calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RR was defined using RECIST 1.0. A nomogram predicting PFS6 was constructed using the RMS package in R (www.r-project.org). Results: Data regarding progression, Hb, LM, PS and TFPC were available from 570 patients. The mean age was 65.1 years, 45.3% had ECOG-PS ≥1, 30.2% had LM, 14.6% had anemia and TFPC was <6 months (mo) in 60.2%. The overall median PFS was 2.7 mo, PFS6 was 22.2% (95% CI: 18.8-25.9) and RR was 17.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-20.9%). For every unit increase in risk group, the hazard of progression increased by 41% and the odds of response decreased by 48% (Table). A nomogram was constructed to predict PFS6 on an individual patient level. Conclusions: PFS6 and RR vary as a function of prognostic factors in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. A nomogram incorporating prognostic factors might facilitate the evaluation of activity across phase II trials enrolling heterogeneous populations and can help to select and stratify patients for phase III evaluation of suitable agents. [Table: see text]

Time from prior chemotherapy enhances prognostic risk grouping in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of pooled, prospective phase 2 trials

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for patients in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) are dismal. The recognized prognostic factors in this context are Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) >0, hemoglobin level (Hb) <10 g/dl, and liver metastasis (LM).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this retrospective study of prospective trials was to investigate the prognostic value of time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC) independent of known prognostic factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data from patients from seven prospective trials with available baseline TFPC, Hb, PS, and LM values were used for retrospective analysis (n=570). External validation was conducted in a second-line phase 3 trial comparing best supportive care (BSC) versus vinflunine plus BSC (n=352).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of factors, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) being the respective primary and secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

ECOG-PS >0, LM, Hb <10 g/dl, and shorter TFPC were significant prognostic factors for OS and PFS on multivariable analysis. Patients with zero, one, two, and three to four factors demonstrated median OS of 12.2, 6.7, 5.1, and 3.0 mo, respectively (concordance statistic=0.638). Setting of prior chemotherapy (metastatic disease vs perioperative) and prior platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin) were not prognostic factors. External validation demonstrated a significant association of TFPC with PFS on univariable and most multivariable analyses, and with OS on univariable analyses. Limitations of retrospective analyses are applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter TFPC enhances prognostic classification independent of ECOG-PS >0, Hb <10 g/dl, and LM in the setting of second-line therapy for advanced UC. These data may facilitate drug development and interpretation of trials.

Impact of baseline prognostic factors on progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) and response in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC)

301

Background: PFS6 was identified to be a robust intermediate endpoint in the setting of second-line therapy for advanced UC (Sonpavde, ESMO Congress, 2012) We studied the impact of second-line prognostic factors (Sonpavde, ESMO Congress 2012) (liver metastasis [LM], anemia [Hb<10 g/dl], ECOG-performance status [PS] ≥1, time from prior chemotherapy [TFPC]) on PFS6 and response rate (RR) to enable comparison of outcomes across phase II trials. Methods: Twelve phase II trials evaluating second-line chemotherapy and/or biologics (n=748) in patients with progressive disease were pooled. PFS was defined as tumor progression or death from any cause. PFS6 was defined from the date of registration and calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Data regarding progression, Hb, LM, PS and TFPC were available in 570 patients, who were considered evaluable. The mean age was 65.1 years, 45.3% had ECOG-PS ≥1, 30.2% had LM, 14.6% had anemia and TFPC was <6 months (mo) in 60.2%. The overall median PFS was 2.7 mo, PFS6 was 22.2% (95% CI: 18.8-25.9) and RR was 17.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-20.9%). PFS6 and RR varied significantly according to risk group (Table). For every unit increase in risk group, the hazard of progression in 6 mo increased by 41% and the odds of response decreased by 48%. Conclusions: PFS6 and RR vary as a function of prognostic factors in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. These data facilitate comparison of outcomes across phase II trials enrolling heterogeneous populations. [Table: see text]

[Chemotherapy for urothelial cancer of the bladder--update 2012]

Despite adequate surgical treatment by radical cystectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, about half of patients suffering from muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer will die. Both overall and cancer-specific survival has been improved by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, it is still not possible to predict who is likely to benefit from neoadjuvant treatment and who will not. In contrast to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy has not definitely been proven. In metastatic urothelial cancer chemotherapy is usually a palliative treatment option. However, in a significant proportion of patients, disease stabilisation and even long-term response can be achieved. Important advances to tailor first- and second-line chemotherapy have recently been reported for clinical prognostic parameters. This review discusses the current standards and developments in the chemotherapeutic treatment of urothelial bladder cancer. Furthermore, it should provide a framework for reasonable treatment choices in daily clinical practice.

Time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC) as a prognostic factor in advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) receiving second-line systemic therapy

4522

Background: Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy for advanced platinum-pretreated UC include ECOG performance status (PS) >0, hemoglobin (Hb) <10g/dL and the presence of liver metastasis (LM) (Bellmunt J, J Clin Oncol 2010). We hypothesized that time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC) independently impacts OS. Methods: Of 11 available phase II trials evaluating second-line therapy for advanced UC (n=698), 6 trials with available baseline Hb, PS and LM were utilized (n=534). The trials evaluated vinflunine (2 trials), docetaxel plus vandetanib or placebo, paclitaxel-gemcitabine, nanoparticle-albumin-bound paclitaxel and paclitaxel-cetuximab. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS from date of starting second-line therapy. Cox proportional hazards regression stratified for trial was used to evaluate the prognostic effect of factors on OS. TFPC was evaluated as a continuous variable, and based on cutpoints of 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (mo) from prior chemotherapy to first study treatment. The choice of optimal cutpoint for TFPC was determined by the maximum likelihood ratio χ2 statistic. Results: Overall, 513 patients were evaluable. 64.1% received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Median OS was 6.8 mo (95% CI: 6.1 to 7.4); range was 0 to 84.2 mo. Median OS was 5.2, 7.1, 8.8, 7.6 and 10.6 mo respectively for TFPC <3 (n=181), 3 to <6 (n=133), 6 to <9 (n=77), 9 to <12 (n=45) and >12 (n=77) mo, respectively. Shorter TFPC was independently prognostic for decreased survival. The optimal cutpoint for TFPC was <3 mo, but no well-defined plateau was observed. PS>0 (HR=1.72, p<0.001), LM (HR=1.41, p=0.002), Hb <10 g/dl (HR=1.59, p=0.001) and TFPC <3 mo (HR=1.67, p<0.001) were significantly prognostic in the multivariate model. Timing of prior chemotherapy (metastatic disease vs. perioperative) was not prognostic. Conclusions: A shorter duration of TFPC exhibited a significant negative prognostic impact on OS independent of known prognostic factors in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. If externally validated, TFPC should be a stratification factor in trials of second-line therapy for advanced UC.

Second-line treatment of advanced urothelial cancer with paclitaxel and RAD001 (everolimus) in a German phase II trial (AUO trial AB 35/09)

4590

Background: Efficacy of second-line treatment after cisplatinum failure in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial cancer is limited. Based on encouraging preclinical data and results from several phase I trials in solid cancers, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the combination of paclitaxel and RAD001 (everolimus) in these pts. Methods: In this single-arm, multicenter phase II trial, pts failing prior cisplatinum based combination treatment for advanced urothelial cancer were treated with paclitaxel (175 mg/m² i.v., three-weekly) and the mTOR-inhibitor RAD001 (10 mg p.o., once daily). Pts were treated until tumor progression by RECIST criteria or until a maximum of 6 cycles was completed. A one-stage design was used to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) as primary endpoint. Results: 27 pts (18 men, 9 women; median age 63 (35-76) years; ECOG ≥ 1: 11/27pts, hepatic metastases: 10 pts, Hb<10 g/dl: 8 pts; upper urinary tract: 9 pts, lower urinary tract 15 pts, both: 3 pts) were enrolled between 07/09 and 12/11. As of 01/12, 19 pts are evaluable for the primary endpoint and the toxicity profile (6 pts still on treatment, 1 patient has withdrawn consent). Main toxicities (all CTCAE grades) were anemia (10/19 pts), leucopenia (8/19 pts), and neuropathy (9/19 pts). Grade III/IV toxicities were anemia (4/19 pts) and leucopenia (4/19 pts). No treatment related deaths were observed. Median number of cycles was 4 (1-6). Complete remission (CR) and partial remission (PR) was observed in 0/19 and 3/19 pts, respectively (ORR 16%). Stable disease (SD) was observed in 10/19 pts. Median time-to-progression (TTP) was 2.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6 – 4.4), median overall survival (OS) was 6.5 (CI 4.5 – 9.2) months. Conclusions: Frequency and severity of toxicities were acceptable. Using the combination of RAD001 and paclitaxel as second-line treatment for advanced urothelial cancer after cisplatinum-failure, response rates and survival times comparable to vinflunine were observed.

Correlation of progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) with overall survival at 12 months (OS12) in an analysis of 10 trials of second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC)

4525

Background: Second-line therapy of advanced UC is a significant unmet need. While phase II trials have relied on response rate (RR) as a primary endpoint, response may not be suitable for assessing cytostatic agents and does not capture duration of benefit. We hypothesized that PFS6 correlates with OS12 and may be a robust intermediate endpoint for phase II trials. Methods: Ten trials with individual patient progression and survival data (n=646) evaluating chemotherapy and/or biologics following chemotherapy were combined. Progression was defined as tumor progression (RECIST 1.0 in 9 trials, WHO in 1 trial), or death from any cause. Unadjusted and adjusted binomial confidence intervals for PFS6, OS12 and response were reported, with adjustment for variability between trials using random effects models. The relationship between PFS6 and OS12 was assessed at the trial level using Pearson correlation and weighted linear regression with larger studies having more influence. The relationship between PFS6 and OS12 at the individual level was assessed using Pearson chi-square test with Yates continuity correction. Statistical analyses employed “R” statistical computing software, version 2.8.0. Results: 59% had visceral metastasis and performance status was 0, 1 and 2 in 50, 39 and 8%, respectively. Median age was 65 years (31-88) and 77% were male. PFS6 was 22% (95% CI: 17-24%), and adjusted PFS6 was 23% (95% CI: 15-34%). The OS12 was 20% (95% CI: 17-24%), and adjusted OS12 was 21% (95% CI: 15-29%). The Pearson correlation between trial level PFS6 and OS12 was 0.66 (p = 0.037). The individual level agreement between PFS6 and OS12 was seen in 82% of patients (kappa = 0.45). Among 560 patients evaluable for response and OS, the RR was 22% (95% CI: 18-25%) and adjusted RR was 21% (95% CI: 13-32%). Trial level Pearson correlation between response and OS12 was 0.37 (p = 0.30), and individual level agreement was seen in 78% (kappa=0.36). Conclusions: PFS6 is associated with OS12 at the trial and individual levels in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. The association of response with OS was suboptimal. Validation of PFS6 is warranted.

[Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: do we actually need a robot?]

Compared to radical prostatectomy robotic surgery is far from becoming the standard of care for radical cystectomy. Concerns about perioperative and oncological safety as well as patient's benefit from this procedure may be a reason.In current publications no differences of perioperative morbidity and mortality were observed between patients undergoing open or robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Interestingly, older patients or patients with impaired health status might even profit from this technique. Though long-term data are missing, oncological results of robot-assisted radical cystectomy are encouraging. Extended lymphadenectomy is possible and positive margins are not seen more frequently. Concerning functional results (continence, potency) only little information is evaluable.In summary, operative and oncological outcomes do not seem to be impaired by robot assistance in radical cystectomy. However, whether patients or patient subgroups truly benefit from robot-assisted cystectomy needs to be elucidated in the future.

[Robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Pilot study for the prospective evaluation of perioperative parameters compared to open radical cystectomy]

BACKGROUND

For robot-assisted radical cystectomy prospective assembly and evaluation of peri- and postoperative parameters within a national database is planned. This pilot study evaluated which parameters should be assessed and which problems might occur for assembly and interpretation of data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 84 patients with radical cystectomy, 14 underwent RARC. Evaluable patients were compared to patients with open radical cystectomy (ORC) regarding perioperative parameters. In addition, a literature review on published single-center RARC series and comparative investigations (RARC vs ORC) was performed. Published data were compared to results of our own series.

RESULTS

RARC patients received less packed red blood cells [RARC: 0 (0-2), ORC 2 (0-12), p=0.009] and hospitalization was shorter [RARC: 14 (8-18) days, ORC: 18 (11-97) days, p=0.015]. Comorbidities as assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index were less common in RARC patients [RARC: 4 (3-8), ORC: 6 (3-11), p=0.11]. No major differences between our own and published results were observed. The rate of continent urinary diversions in the Düsseldorf RARC cohort was, apart from one study, larger. Problems in the assembly and interpretation of operation time, blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative recovery were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in this small cohort results of published studies were confirmed. Potential problems in data assembly were identified. Appropriate solutions will be implemented in the national database.

Randomized phase III trial of 2nd line gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced bladder cancer: short-term versus prolonged treatment [German Association of Urological Oncology (AUO) trial AB 20/99]

BACKGROUND

The second-line chemotherapeutic treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) after failure of cisplatin-based first-line therapy needs to be improved. Based on encouraging phase II data of gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) (GP), this trial was designed to compare a short-term (arm A) versus a prolonged (arm B) second-line combination chemotherapy of GP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 102 randomized patients, 96 were eligible for analysis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR) and toxicity.

RESULTS

Neither OS [arm A: 7.8 (95% CI: 4.2-11.4), arm B: 8.0 (95% CI: 4.9-11.1) months] and PFS [arm A: 4.0 (95% CI: 0-8.0), arm B: 3.1 (95% CI: 1.9-4.2) months] nor ORR (arm A: 37.5%, arm B: 41.5%) were significantly different. On prolonged treatment, more patients experienced severe anemia (arm A: 6.7% versus arm B: 26.7% grade III/IV anemia; P = 0.011). In six patients, treatment was stopped during the first cycle due to disease progression or toxicity. Two patients died due to treatment-related toxic effects.

CONCLUSION

Due to rapid tumor progression and toxicity at this dosage and schedule in a multicenter setting, it was not feasible to deliver a prolonged regimen. However, a high response rate of ∼40% makes GP a promising second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic UC.