|
1
|
Such M, Lavolle A, Popelin MB, Thibault C, Fontaine E, Dariane C, Oudard S, Mejean A, Timsit MO, Audenet F. Administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer in real life: Are urologists still too cautious? Prog Urol 2021; 31:332-339. [PMID: 33468415 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is now recommended to treat muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) but is not always executed in real life. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of patients with MIBC who receive an optimal NAC, and to present the predictive factors of its achievement. METHODS This monocenter retrospective study included all the patients who underwent radical cystectomy for≥pT2NxM0 MIBC between 2013, January and 2018, December. NAC consisted in 4-6 cycles of MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin) or 4 cycles of GC (gemcitabin, and carboplatin). Demographic (sex, age, ECOG-PS, glomerular filtration rate [GFR], and cN stage), surgical (urinary derivation, time of surgery, blood loss, and complications), and oncological characteristics were analyzed. Multivariate analysis are made to find predictors of administration of NAC. RESULTS One hundred and twenty-seven patients were included. Thirty received CNA (24%). Patients who underwent CNA were younger, with better ECOG and better GFR. Multivariate analysis showed that cN+ stage and better GFR were significantly associated to administration of NAC. Eight patients (27%) couldn't receive an optimal treatment due to toxicity. Perioperative complication rates were similar, with or without NAC. Patients who underwent NAC had a worse GFR after treatment (-17 versus +5mL/min, P<0.01). CONCLUSION Due to the risks of toxicity, NAC can only be proposed to selected population, which is not the current patients. Immunotherapy could allow to treat more patients because of better tolerance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Such
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France.
| | - A Lavolle
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - M-B Popelin
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - C Thibault
- Service d'oncologie médicale, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, Paris, France
| | - E Fontaine
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - C Dariane
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - S Oudard
- Service d'oncologie médicale, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, Paris, France
| | - A Mejean
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - M-O Timsit
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - F Audenet
- Service d'urologie, université de Paris, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, AP-HP centre, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|