Gemcitabine plus epirubicin in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for platinum-based regimens

The continuing role of chemotherapy in the management of advanced urothelial cancer

Despite intense drug development in the last decade in metastatic urothelial carcinoma and the incorporation of novel compounds to the treatment armamentarium, chemotherapy remains a key treatment strategy for this disease. Platinum-based combinations are still the backbone of first-line therapy in most cases. The role of chemotherapy in the second line has been more ill-defined due to the complexity of this setting, where patient selection remains critical. Nevertheless, two regimens, one in monotherapy (i.e. vinflunine) and one in combination with antiangiogenics (i.e. docetaxel + ramucirumab) have shown efficacy. Immunotherapy through checkpoint inhibition has revealed remarkably durable benefit in a small proportion of patients in the first and second line and is currently the preferred partner for combinations with chemotherapy. Difficult populations such as patients with liver metastases or those progressing to checkpoint inhibition represent a medical challenge and selective ways of delivering cytotoxics, like the antibody-drug conjugates, might represent a valid alternative. This article reviews the current role of chemotherapy in the management of advanced urothelial carcinoma and the ongoing and coming studies involving this treatment strategy.

The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine for the treatment of bladder cancer

Bladder cancer is a common type of cancer with an estimated incidence of more than 70,000 patients and had a mortality of 16,000 patients in the US in 2015. In more than 70% of cases the disease is diagnosed at the non-muscle invasive stage. However, muscle invasive or metastatic stages need multimodal treatment strategies including surgical treatment and chemotherapy in a neoadjuvant, adjuvant or palliative setting. Gemcitabine is a pyrimidine antimetabolite that has shown efficacy when used systemically in bladder cancer with only mild toxicity compared to other chemotherapeutic agents. This article aims to summarize the results of clinical trials in monotherapeutic, combined or sequential treatment strategies, especially considering efficacy and safety of the different therapeutic regimes.

Gemcitabine plus split-dose cisplatin could be a promising alternative to gemcitabine plus carboplatin for cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

PURPOSE

Cisplatin-based chemotherapies are standard treatment regimens of advanced urothelial cell carcinoma. But a significant proportion of patients are unsuitable for cisplatin due to impaired renal function. Carboplatin-based regimens such as gemcitabine and carboplatin regimen (GCb) were applied due to less nephrotoxicity and side effects in these patients. However, it is known that clinical outcome of carboplatin-based regimens was unsatisfactory compared to cisplatin-based regimens. We compared the nephrotoxicity and response to treatment between GCb and gemcitabine plus split-dose cisplatin regimen (GC-S).

METHODS

GC-S consists of cisplatin 35 mg/m(2) given on day 1, 2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1, 8 every 3 weeks. GCb consists of carboplatin (AUC 4.5) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1, 8 every 3 weeks. Patient demographics, serum creatinine and calculated GFR, adverse events, and radiologic response were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with GCb (n = 22) or GC-S (n = 22) in our institution. There was no difference at deterioration of serum creatinine or GFR between GCb and GC-S (p = 0.442, p = 0.345). For patients who had GFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) subgroup, similar results were produced (p = 0.292, p = 0.186). In addition, GC-S (68.4 %) showed improved response compared to GCb (31.6 %) (p = 0.023). Both treatments were well tolerated, and there were no unexpected serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on preserved renal function, favorable response, and tolerability, GC-S could be a promising alternative to GCb for cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

First-line treatment of metastatic disease: cisplatin-ineligible patients

More than 50% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma are not eligible for the standard treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In general, cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial cancer experience poor outcomes with standard treatment, although substantial heterogeneity exists. Baseline variables associated with poor prognosis include borderline performance status, presence of visceral metastases, liver metastases, and low hemoglobin. Although no standard treatment has been defined for cisplatin-ineligible patients, recommendations regarding carboplatin-based combination chemotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy versus best supportive care are typically based on performance status and renal function. The clinical development of novel agents is of considerable interest.

Chemotherapeutic and targeted biological agents for metastatic bladder cancer: a comprehensive review

The American Cancer Society estimates that 73 510 new cases of bladder cancer will be diagnosed and 15 000 deaths will result this year. The paper summarizes the clinical evidence for the use of platinum-based, non-platinum-based and new targeted biological agents, while reporting the future directions in the treatment of metastatic bladder cancer. For cisplatin-base regimens, the combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (M-VAC) has been the mainstream treatment for both advanced and metastatic bladder cancers. It showed significant improvement in the complete response rate and overall survival time in comparison with single-agent cisplatin. For cisplatin-ineligible patients, namely patients with renal impairment, symptomatic cardiac disease and poor performance status, alternative therapies consisting of paclitaxel, gemcitabine and carboplatin were shown to be of benefit. Pemetrexed and vinflunine have also shown effectiveness, with small but demonstrable overall survival benefits. Gemcitabine-based doublet therapies (combined with paclitaxel, docetaxel, irinotecan, oxaliplatin or epirubicin) have all been shown to be effective and well-tolerated. Several new targeted therapies, such as gefetinib, sorafenib and lapatinib, have received attention in recent years; however, their effectiveness as single agents in a relapse setting have not been optimal and more studies are warranted.

Nonplatinum therapy in advanced bladder cancer

Carcinoma of the bladder is the second most prevalent genitourinary malignancy and the fifth most common solid malignancy in the USA. Combination chemotherapy is used in most patients with advanced disease. Traditionally, on the basis of favorable response rates and survival data, cisplatin-based regimens have been the preferred chemotherapy for patients with metastatic bladder cancer. However, the toxicity profile of cisplatin precludes its use in a significant subset of patients with advanced bladder cancer. Conversely, noncisplatin-containing regimens have been shown to have a more favorable toxicity profile and to have activity in advanced bladder cancer. Here, various nonplatinum chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease are reviewed.

Choosing chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract is the second most common cancer of the genitourinary system and the fifth most common cancer in Western countries with more than 300,000 new cases per year worldwide. Following the introduction of cisplatin-based chemotherapy, median overall survival in patients with metastatic disease has doubled, demonstrating chemotherapy as an important treatment modality in advanced or metastatic disease. Patients 'unfit' to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy are characterized by impaired renal function, impaired performance status, and/or comorbidity that preclude the use of cisplatin. In this review we summarize the different chemotherapeutic schemes, focusing on treatment options in cisplatin 'unfit' patients.

Systemic chemotherapy in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium and impaired renal function

Cisplatin is the backbone of chemotherapeutic regimens used in the treatment of advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. However, about 50% of patients cannot be administered cisplatin because of impaired renal functions. A review of the different approaches that have been developed in this patient population was performed through a Medline search from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2010. Twenty-six studies including 25 phase II and one randomized phase II/III studies were analyzed. All regimens, except one, were based on gemcitabine and/or carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Only five (20%) out of 25 phase II studies actually include homogeneous patients with an impaired renal function defined by a creatinine clearance below 60 ml/min. One hundred and eight patients with a median creatinine clearance ranging from 28 to 48 ml/min received four different chemotherapy regimens including one to four drugs. The results showed the response rates to vary from 24 to 56% and survival to range from 7 to 15 months. No standard chemotherapy can be recommended from literature data. Future randomized studies will have to solve the following questions: what is the optimal definition of cisplatin eligibility? Which platinum salt should be used? Is a platinum salt necessary? How many drugs should be delivered?

Gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic bladder carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

• To systematically review the literature on gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Onlinedatabase (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medicadatabase (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database(CIHNAL), the Cochrane database of randomized trials, the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe emCiências da Saúdedatabase (LILACS), and Web of Science were searched to identify trials of gemcitabine for metastatic bladder cancer. Also searched were international guidelines on metastatic prostate cancer, trial registries, and recent systematic reviews. Data on trial design, survival, tumour response and toxicity outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.

RESULTS

• This review identified six randomized trials of combined chemotherapy with gemcitabine for the management of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. • One trial compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GCis) with methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin(MVAC) and found no difference in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 1.09) but a better safety profile with GCis, which was suggested as the treatment of choice. • A second trial evaluated GCis against gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCarbo) and reported similar median OS (12.8 vs 9.8 months), disease progression (8.3 vs 7.3 months) and tumour response rates (66% vs 56%) for the two patient groups. • A third trial compared GCis with GCis plus paclitaxel (GCisPac) and showed no significant difference in median OS (12.3 vs 15.3 months) and response rates (44% vs 43%) but greater toxicity with GCisPac. • A fourth trial assessed GCarbo against methotrexate plus carboplatin plus vinblastine in patients unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and found similar tumour response rates for each regime (38% vs 20%) but the triplet regime was more toxic. • Two other randomized studies compared a 2-weekly maintenance regime of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel with a 3-weelky regime given for a maximum of six cycles and found that the maintenance schedule did not confer any additional survival benefit. • In all, 53 observational studies of gemcitabine chemotherapy were identified that varied considerably in the drug combinations used and schedules. Overall response rates (17-78%) and median OS (6.4-24.0 months) were variable with no combination being clearly superior.

CONCLUSIONS

• Gemcitabine combined chemotherapy is active in the management of metastatic bladder cancer. • GCis may be considered an alternative regime to MVAC. • GCarbo should be considered for patients unfit for cisplatin-based therapy.

Treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer "unfit" for Cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is considered standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, a large proportion of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are considered "unfit" for cisplatin. The purpose of this review is to define unfit patients and to identify treatment options for this subgroup of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this review, the criteria used to define unfit patients are explored and the results of prospective clinical trials evaluating chemotherapeutic regimens in unfit patients are summarized.

RESULTS

Several phase II trials and a single, large phase III trial have explored chemotherapeutic regimens for the treatment of unfit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Heterogeneous eligibility criteria have been used to define unfit patients in these studies. A uniform definition of unfit is proposed on the basis of the results of a survey of genitourinary medical oncologists. According to this definition, unfit patients would meet at least one of the following criteria: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min, grade ≥ 2 hearing loss, grade ≥ 2 neuropathy, and/or New York Heart Association Class III heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Additional studies to optimize treatment for this important subset of patients are needed. A uniform definition of unfit patients will lead to more uniform clinical trials, enhanced ability to interpret the results of these trials, and a greater likelihood of developing a viable strategy for regulatory approval.

[Chemotherapy in unfit bladder cancer patients]

Bladder cancer often occurs in patients with high risk of acute toxicity under chemotherapy. So-called unfit patients are a heterogenous population, sharing a contra-indication for cisplatin and presenting either chronic renal failure, and/or elderly, and/or altered performance status, and/or severe co-morbidities. Therefore, it is necessary to develop chemotherapy protocols feasible in renal insufficient patients, and well tolerated in frail patients. The medical evaluation prior to initiate chemotherapy is of major importance to screen for chronic disorders and to anticipate the potential acute complications following chemotherapy. Chemotherapy of elderly patients with severe comorbidities is a common situation in bladder cancer, and will concern all cancer patients. The evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio of the chemotherapy protocol is a typical expertise of medical oncologists, which requires to integrate the complex links between the patient, the antitumor agent, and toxicity. The physician must also have a honest dialogue to inform, advise, listen to the patients priorities. Medical oncologists have to have in mind this situation and to adapt their clinic and their vocabulary to this emerging reality.

Management of bladder cancer: current and emerging strategies

Cancer of the urinary bladder is the fifth most prevalent solid tumour in the US. Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, accounting for about 90% of cases. About 25% of patients with bladder cancer have advanced disease (muscle-invasive or metastatic disease) at presentation and are candidates for systemic chemotherapy. Urothelial carcinoma is a chemo-sensitive disease, with a high overall and complete response rate to combination chemotherapy. In the setting of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with overall survival benefit. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting is yet to be validated. In the setting of metastatic disease, use of cisplatin-based regimens improves survival. However, despite initial high response rates, the responses are typically not durable leading to recurrence and death in the vast majority of these patients. Currently, there is no standard second-line therapy for patients in whom first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease has failed. Many newer chemotherapeutic agents have shown modest activity in urothelial carcinoma. Improved understanding of molecular biology and pathogenesis of urothelial carcinoma has opened avenues for the use of molecularly targeted therapies, several of which are being tested in clinical trials. Currently, several novel drugs seem particularly promising including inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway, such as cetuximab, and inhibitors of tumour angiogenesis, such as bevacizumab and sunitinib. Development of reliable molecular predictive markers is expected to improve treatment decisions, therapy development and outcomes in urothelial carcinoma. Funding of and participation in clinical trials are key to advancing the care of urothelial cancer patients. Current and emerging strategies in the medical management of urothelial carcinoma are reviewed.

Biweekly carboplatin/gemcitabine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: report of efficacy, quality of life and geriatric assessment

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated safety and efficacy of first-line gemcitabine/carboplatin in unfit-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and the effect on the quality of life and functional status of elderly patients (aged >70).

METHODS

Unfit patients had ECOG performance status (PS) > or =2, creatinine clearance <50 ml/min or comorbidities precluding cisplatin administration. Carboplatin at area under the curve of 2.5 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) were administered biweekly. Elderly patients were stratified into group 1 (no activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental ADL dependency and no comorbidities), group 2 (instrumental ADL dependency or 1-2 comorbidities) and group 3 (ADL dependency or > or =2 comorbidities).

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enrolled: 68% had PS 2-3, 69% a creatinine clearance <50 ml/min and 65% had 1 or more comorbidities. There were 3 cases of grade 3 toxicity (9%). Response rate was 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11-41]. Median follow-up was 8 months, median progression-free survival 4.4 months (95% CI 1.03-7.75) and median overall survival 9.8 months (95% CI 4.7-14.9). Patients in geriatric assessment groups 1 and 2 had a significantly longer median progression-free survival compared to group 3 [6.9 months (95% CI 1.3-12.4) vs. 1.9 months (95% CI 0.5-3.2); p = 0.005].

CONCLUSION

First-line gemcitabine/carboplatin combination is active in unfit-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Pretreatment quality of life and geriatric assessment may be useful in selecting patients likely to benefit from this treatment.

Biweekly Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin-Based Regimen

BACKGROUND

To avoid cisplatin-related gastrointestinal, renal and other toxicity while maintaining efficacy in the palliative setting or second line chemotherapeutic regimen for cisplatin-resistant urothelial cancer, chemotherapeutic regimens have been investigated that do not include cisplatin. The current study was designed to evaluate efficacy, clinical feasibility and safety of gemcitabine and paclitaxel (GP) regimen in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who were ineligible for standard cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

Gemcitabine 2500 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) were administered intravenously every 2 weeks for 23 patients (17 males and 6 females) with advanced urothelial cancer who were ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy; metastatic disease being resistant to cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen in 14, heavy toxicity in prior cisplatin-based chemotherapy in three, poor ECOG performance in two and impaired renal function in four. Average age was 67 (53-77). Performance status was 0 in 18 patients, 1 in three patients and 2 in two patients.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 30% (95% CI 15.6-50.8%). Of the 23 patients, no patient attained CR and 7 patients had PR. In the cisplatin-resistant group, the response rate was 14.2% (2/14; 95% CI 4.0-39.9%). In the remaining patients ineligible for cisplatin, the response rate was 55.5% (5/9; 95% CI 26.6-81.1%). The median duration of response was 4 months (range 3-8). The median duration of survival for all patients was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.6-15.5). Myelosuppression, predominantly neutropenia, was the most common serious toxicity and toxicity of Grade 3 or greater was observed in six patients (26%). Among non-hematological toxicity, neuralgia was the most commonly observed and occurred in nine patients (39%) although no patient had toxicity of Grade 3 or greater. Three patients had interstitial pneumonitis possibly attributed to gemcitabine. One patient developed severe bilateral disease after two cycles of the regimen, which was partially resolved with corticosteroid therapy.

CONCLUSION

GP regimen is effective in some patients with cisplatin-resistant urothelial cancer and promising as second line chemotherapy. GP regimen is more effective and well tolerated as first line chemotherapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Toxicity is generally mild but care must be taken for patients with risk of interstitial pneumonitis. A further larger scale study is required to confirm the efficacy of the GP regimen.

Combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in urothelial cancer patients with severe renal or cardiac comorbidities

Clinical trials in urothelial cancer exclude a large population of patients. An observational study evaluated the behavior of frail patients not eligible for cisplatin- or carboplatin-based regimens. Urothelial cancer patients requiring chemotherapy with either chronic renal failure (creatinine clearance <60 ml/min), and/or performance status (PS) > or =2 and/or cardiac dysfunction were prospectively observed. The treatment associated gemcitabine 1200 mg/m and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m, bimonthly (GO). Over 2 years, 31 of 45 (69%) patients with urothelial cancer requiring chemotherapy were not eligible for cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Sixteen (52%) had a PS > or =2, 23 (74%) had creatinine clearance <60 ml/min, and 20 (65%) had an underlying cardiopathy. A total of 178 cycles of GO were administered (median 6 per patient, range 2-12). No aggravation of renal or cardiac status was noted. Acute grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 16 and 13% of patients, respectively, with one febrile neutropenia. The median progression-free and overall survival values were 4.2 and 9.5 months, respectively. The majority of urothelial cancer patients have severe renal or cardiac comorbidities, and we conclude that in this subset of patients the combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin is well tolerated, and its clinical activity warrants further evaluation.

Schedule-dependent cytotoxic interaction between epidoxorubicin and gemcitabine in human bladder cancer cells in vitro

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the activity of epidoxorubicin (EPI) and gemcitabine (GEM) and to define the most effective schedule in human bladder cancer cells.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The study was performed on HT1376 and MCR cell lines. Cells were exposed for 1 and 24 h to drugs used in different schemes. Cytotoxic activity was evaluated by the sulforhodamine B assay, potential clinical activity was estimated by relative antitumor activity, and the type of drug interaction was assessed using the method of Chou and Talalay. Cell cycle perturbations and apoptosis were assessed by flow cytometry; BAX, BCL-2, and P53 expression was evaluated by Western blot; and DNA damage was assessed using the alkaline Comet assay.

RESULTS

EPI and GEM produced a cytotoxic effect in both cell lines, with 50% inhibitory concentration and relative antitumor activity values suggestive of a high clinical activity. Simultaneous treatment with EPI and GEM and the sequence GEM-->EPI caused an antagonistic interaction (combination index > 1) after both 1- and 24-h treatments. Conversely, the inverse sequence, EPI-->GEM, produced a synergistic interaction that was more pronounced in MCR cells than in HT1376 cells. The increase in DNA-damaged cells from 10% to 20% after single-drug exposure to 40-60% at the end of EPI-->GEM treatment may explain the synergistic interaction produced by the anthracycline-antimetabolite sequence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that the efficacy of the EPI and GEM combination is highly schedule dependent and indicate that the most active scheme is EPI followed by GEM, which is currently being validated in an ongoing intravesical Phase I-II clinical protocol.

Bladder cancer

Bladder cancer is a significant public health problem responsible for more than 130,000 deaths annually worldwide. Disease prevalence is also remarkable, with more than 500,000 patients carrying the diagnosis in the United States alone. Significant progress has been made in understanding the underlying molecular and genetic events in bladder cancer. However, there remains a great need for the development of reliable markers that can provide clinically useful information regarding diagnosis and prognosis and to facilitate the selection of appropriate therapy in the individual patient. Ongoing and future investigation is anticipated to refine treatment of patients with high-risk superficial disease, to determine the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk invasive disease, and to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy for patients with metastatic bladder cancer.