The outcome of elderly patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based combination chemotherapy

Systemic chemotherapy in inoperable or metastatic bladder cancer

Urothelial cancer is a common malignancy. The management of patients with recurrent disease after cystectomy or initially metastatic or unresectable disease represents a therapeutic challenge. Systemic chemotherapy prolongs survival but long-term survival remains infrequent. During recent years there has been improvement due to the use of novel chemotherapeutic agents, mainly gemcitabine and the taxanes. The long-considered-standard MVAC has been challenged by combinations showing more favourable toxicity profiles and equal (gemcitabine-cisplatin) or even improved (dose-dense, G-CSF-supported MVAC) efficacy. Specific interest has also been generated in specific groups of patients (elderly patients, patients with renal function impairment or comorbidities), who are not fit for the standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy but can derive significant benefit from carboplatin- or taxane-based treatment. Retrospective analyses have enabled the identification of groups of patients with different prognoses, who possibly require different therapeutic approaches. Modern chemotherapy offers a chance of long-term survival in patients without visceral metastases, possibly in combination with definitive local treatment. Finally, the progress of targeted therapies in other neoplasms seems to be reflected in advanced bladder cancer by recent studies indicating that biological agents can be combined with modern chemotherapy. The true role of such therapies is currently being evaluated.

The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin as first-line treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The toxicity of platinum-based combinations represents a common problem for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. The authors previously reported encouraging efficacy for the combination of carboplatin and gemcitabine in patients considered to be unfit for cisplatin-based treatment. The objective of the current multicenter Phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin as first-line treatment in unselected patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated, bidimensionally measurable, inoperable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were treated with carboplatin, area under the concentration curve of 5 (Day 1) and gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) (Days 1 and 8), every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (49 men and 11 women, with a median age of 69 yrs) were enrolled in the current study. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 38.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 26-51.8%) (11.7% complete responses and 26.7% partial responses). The median time to disease progression was 7.6 months (95% CI, 4.5-10.7 mos) and the median overall survival was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12-20.6 mos). The median survival was comparable to that reported for the combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC) according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model for patients with similar baseline prognostic features. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) included anemia (18%), thrombocytopenia (23%), and neutropenia (52%), with 7 episodes of febrile neutropenia (11%) reported. Nonhematologic toxicity was rare. One toxic death occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin appears to have considerable activity as the first-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with manageable toxicity, and deserves further evaluation in this setting.