1
|
Gemcitabine based trimodality treatment in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: May neutrophil lymphocyte and platelet lymphocyte ratios predict outcomes? Urol Oncol 2020; 39:368.e19-368.e29. [PMID: 33189528 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cisplatin based chemoradiation has been commonly used as a definitive treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The aim of the current study is to evaluate oncologic results and toxicity profile of bladder-sparing treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and gemcitabine chemotherapy (ChT) in patients with MIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between April 2005 and November 2018 44 patients with nonmetastatic and N0 MIBC were treated with transurethral resection of bladder (TURB), EBRT and concurrent gemcitabine. All patients were staged using thorax-abdomen-pelvic CT and pelvic MRI. EBRT was delivered using 3D conformal technique or intensity modulated radiotherapy. Patients received 50 Gy in 25 to 28 fractions to full bladder followed by a boost dose of 10 Gy in 5 fractions to empty bladder with weekly concurrent gemcitabine of 50 mg/m2. All patients were evaluated for age, gender, smoking status, neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) at diagnosis, presence of hydroureteronephrosis (HUN), preoperative tumor size, tumor multifocality, presence of CIS, clinical tumor stage. Acute/late genitourinary (GUS) and gastrointestinal (GIS) toxicity, recurrence status, cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21.0. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated to describe CSS and OS. The effect of different parameters on survival was investigated using the log rank test. RESULTS Median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile [IQR]; 66-80). The median tumor size was 30 mm (IQR, 15-59 mm). Thirty-two (77%) patients had T2, 6 (14%) patients had T3, and 4 (9%) patients had T4a disease. Median NLR was 2.6 (IQR, 1.7-3.8) and median PLR was 126.47 (IQR, 77.4-184.8). Median follow-up time was 21 months (range, 6-153 months). At the first TURB performed 6 weeks after CRT, complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progression was detected in 37 (84%), 3 (7%), 1 (2%), and 3 (7%) patients, respectively. One- and 2-year OS, CSS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 86% and 64%; 88% and 66%; 65% and 44%; 68% and 48%, respectively. In univariate analysis; prognostic factors were age and presence of HUN for OS and DMFS; age, HUN, presence of CIS, NLR, and PLR for DSS; HUN, NLR, and PLR for LRFS, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the independent predictor was the presence of HUN for OS, LRFS, and DMFS; NLR for DSS; PLR for LRFS and age for DMSF. For a subgroup of 17 patients with complete TURB and no CIS and HUN symptoms, 2-year OS, DSS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 88%, 88%, 72%, and 79%, respectively. The treatment was well-tolerated and all patients completed the planned EBRT and ChT. No acute or late ≥ grade 3 toxicity was observed. Grade II acute GIS toxicity was detected in 3 (7%) patients and grade II acute GUS toxicity was detected in 9 (21%) patients, respectively. Grade II late GUS toxicity was observed in 2 (5%) patients. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine based trimodality treatment is well-tolerated with similar oncologic outcomes reported in the literature. Older age, presence of CIS and high NLR and PLR values seem to deteriorate DSS.
Collapse
|
2
|
Dinh TKT, Mitin T, Bagshaw HP, Hoffman KE, Hwang C, Jeffrey Karnes R, Kishan AU, Liauw SL, Lloyd S, Potters L, Showalter TN, Taira AV, Vapiwala N, Zaorsky NG, D'Amico AV, Nguyen PL, Davis BJ. Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Treatment of Node-Negative Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:953-963. [PMID: 33127490 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.10.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2020] [Revised: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Definitive radiation therapy (RT), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, is an alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with localized, muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are either not surgical candidates or prefer organ preservation. We aim to synthesize an evidence-based guideline regarding the appropriate use of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses literature review using the PubMed and Embase databases. Based on the literature review, critical management topics were identified and reformulated into consensus questions. An expert panel was assembled to address key areas of both consensus and controversy using the modified Delphi framework. RESULTS A total of 761 articles were screened, of which 61 were published between 1975 and 2019 and included for full review. There were 7 well-designed studies, 20 good quality studies, 28 quality studies with design limitations, and 6 references not suited as primary evidence. Adjuvant radiation therapy after cystectomy was not included owing to lack of high-quality data or clinical use. An expert panel consisting of 14 radiation oncologists, 1 medical oncologist, and 1 urologist was assembled. We identified 4 clinical variants of MIBC: surgically fit patients who wish to pursue organ preservation, patients surgically unfit for cystectomy, patients medically unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and borderline cystectomy candidates based on age with unilateral hydronephrosis and normal renal function. We identified key areas of controversy, including use of definitive radiation therapy for patients with negative prognostic factors, appropriate radiation therapy dose, fractionation, fields and technique when used, and chemotherapy sequencing and choice of agent. CONCLUSIONS There is limited level-one evidence to guide appropriate treatment of MIBC. Studies vary significantly with regards to patient selection, chemotherapy use, and radiation therapy technique. A consensus guideline on the appropriateness of RT for MIBC may aid practicing oncologists in bridging the gap between data and clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tru-Khang T Dinh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Timur Mitin
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.
| | - Hilary P Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Clinics, Palo Alto, California
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clara Hwang
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | | | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Stanley L Liauw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Shane Lloyd
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Louis Potters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York
| | - Timothy N Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Al V Taira
- Sutter Health Radiation Oncology, San Mateo, California
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Anthony V D'Amico
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer, Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer, Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rouprêt M, Neuzillet Y, Pignot G, Compérat E, Audenet F, Houédé N, Larré S, Masson-Lecomte A, Colin P, Brunelle S, Xylinas E, Roumiguié M, Méjean A. French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Bladder cancer. Prog Urol 2020; 28:R48-R80. [PMID: 32093463 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2018] [Accepted: 07/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Objective To propose updated French guidelines for non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive (MIBC) bladder cancers. Methods A Medline search was achieved between 2015 and 2018, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of bladder cancer, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence. Results Diagnosis of NMIBC (Ta, T1, CIS) is based on a complete deep resection of the tumor. The use of fluorescence and a second-look indication are essential to improve initial diagnosis. Risks of both recurrence and progression can be estimated using the EORTC score. A stratification of patients into low, intermediate and high risk groups is pivotal for recommending adjuvant treatment: instillation of chemotherapy (immediate post-operative, standard schedule) or intravesical BCG (standard schedule and maintenance). Cystectomy is recommended in BCG-refractory patients. Extension evaluation of MIBC is based on contrast-enhanced pelvic-abdominal and thoracic CT-scan. Multiparametric MRI can be an alternative. Cystectomy associated with extended lymph nodes dissection is considered the gold standard for non-metastatic MIBC. It should be preceded by cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in eligible patients. An orthotopic bladder substitution should be proposed to both male and female patients with no contraindication and in cases of negative frozen urethral samples; otherwise transileal ureterostomy is recommended as urinary diversion. All patients should be included in an Early Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. For metastatic MIBC, first-line chemotherapy using platin is recommended (GC or MVAC), when performans status (PS < 1) and renal function (creatinine clearance > 60 mL/min) allow it (only in 50 % of cases). In second line treatment, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival. Conclusion These updated French guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for NMIBC and MIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Rouprêt
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,GRC no 5, ONCOTYPE-URO, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne université, AP–HP, 75013 Paris, France
| | - Y Neuzillet
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, hôpital Foch, université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 92150 Suresnes, France
| | - G Pignot
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service de chirurgie oncologique 2, institut Paoli-Calmettes, 13008 Marseille, France
| | - E Compérat
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’anatomie pathologique, GRC no 5, ONCOTYPE-URO, hôpital Tenon, HUEP, Sorbonne université, AP-HP, 75020 Paris, France
| | - F Audenet
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, AP–HP, 75015 Paris, France
| | - N Houédé
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Département d’oncologie médicale, CHU Caremaux, Montpellier université, 30000 Nîmes, France
| | - S Larré
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, CHU de Reims, Reims, 51100 France
| | - A Masson-Lecomte
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, université Paris-Diderot, AP–HP, 75010 Paris, France
| | - P Colin
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, hôpital privé de la Louvière, 59800 Lille, France
| | - S Brunelle
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service de radiologie, institut Paoli-Calmettes, 13008 Marseille, France
| | - E Xylinas
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie de l’hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, université Paris-Descartes, AP–HP, 75018 Paris, France
| | - M Roumiguié
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Département d’urologie, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, 31000 France
| | - A Méjean
- Comité de cancérologie de l’Association française d’urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l’urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France,Service d’urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, AP–HP, 75015 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rouprêt M, Neuzillet Y, Pignot G, Compérat E, Audenet F, Houédé N, Larré S, Masson-Lecomte A, Colin P, Brunelle S, Xylinas E, Roumiguié M, Méjean A. RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU — Actualisation 2018—2020 : tumeurs de la vessie French ccAFU guidelines — Update 2018—2020: Bladder cancer. Prog Urol 2018; 28:S46-S78. [PMID: 30366708 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.07.283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2018] [Accepted: 07/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: doi:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.006. C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the doi:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.006. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Rouprêt
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Sorbonne université, GRC no5, ONCOTYPE-URO, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, 75013 Paris, France.
| | - Y Neuzillet
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 92150 Suresnes, France
| | - G Pignot
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service de chirurgie oncologique 2, institut Paoli-Calmettes, 13008 Marseille, France
| | - E Compérat
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'anatomie pathologique, hôpital Tenon, HUEP, Sorbonne université, GRC no5, ONCOTYPE-URO, 75020 Paris, France
| | - F Audenet
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, AP-HP, 75015 Paris, France
| | - N Houédé
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Département d'oncologie médicale, CHU Caremaux, Montpellier université, 30000 Nîmes, France
| | - S Larré
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, CHU de Reims, Reims, 51100 France
| | - A Masson-Lecomte
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, université Paris-Diderot, 75010 Paris, France
| | - P Colin
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital privé de la Louvière, 59800 Lille, France
| | - S Brunelle
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service de radiologie, institut Paoli-Calmettes, 13008 Marseille, France
| | - E Xylinas
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie de l'hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, université Paris-Descartes, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75018 Paris, France
| | - M Roumiguié
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Département d'urologie, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, 31000 France
| | - A Méjean
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe vessie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, AP-HP, 75015 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer organ-preserving therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2018; 36:1997-2008. [PMID: 29943218 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2384-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2018] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the effectiveness and harms of bladder-preserving trimodal therapy (TMT) as a first-line treatment versus radical cystectomy (RC) plus radical pelvic lymphadenectomy in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer in terms of overall survival. METHODS We included parallel clinical trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that included patients older than 18 years old, diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, who underwent TMT compared with RC. The planned comparison was TMT versus RC plus pelvic lymphadenectomy as first-line treatment. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were salvage cystectomy and cancer-specific survival and progression-free survival. A search strategy was designed for MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and LILACS. We saturated information with conference abstracts, in progress clinical trials, literature published in non-indexed journals, and other sources of gray literature. Standardized tools assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the statistical analysis in R v3.4.1 and effect sizes were reported in terms of hazard ratios (HR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Accordingly, we used a random effect model due to the statistical heterogeneity found in included studies. RESULTS We found 2682 records with the search strategies and, finally, 11 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The summary HR for OS was 1.06 95%CI (0.85-1.31) I2 = 77%, showing no statistical difference. Regarding cancer-specific survival, the summary HR was 1.23 95%CI (1.04-1.46) I2 = 14%. On the other side, for the progression-free survival, the summary HR was 1.11 95%CI (0.63-1.95) I2 = 78%. Only one study described HR for adverse events (1.37 95%CI 1.16-1.59). CONCLUSION We found no differences in overall survival and progression-free survival between these two interventions. Nonetheless, we found that cancer-specific survival favored patients who received radical cystectomy.
Collapse
|
6
|
Thompson C, Joseph N, Sanderson B, Logue J, Wylie J, Elliott T, Lyons J, Anandadas C, Choudhury A. Tolerability of Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy With Gemcitabine (GemX), With and Without Prior Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 97:732-739. [PMID: 28244408 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2016] [Revised: 11/14/2016] [Accepted: 11/21/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study is to assess the tolerability of concurrent chemoradiation therapy with gemcitabine (GemX) in muscle invasive bladder cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoGemX) by use of patient- and provider-reported outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS Seventy-eight patients were treated with GemX. Thirty-eight received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Patients were prospectively assessed during treatment and at 6 weeks and 12 months after treatment completion. Radiation therapy was given to a total dose of 52.5 Gy in 20 fractions with weekly concurrent gemcitabine chemotherapy, 100 mg/m2. Toxicity was assessed by the care provider and by a patient-reported outcome questionnaire collecting scores on the late effects in normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, and analytic scales and was statistically compared at baseline and 12 months, as well as between the neoGemX and GemX groups. RESULTS The median duration of follow-up was 15.9 months. The radiation therapy completion rate was 95%, and 96% of patients completed at least 3 cycles of gemcitabine. Bowel toxicity of grade 3 or greater was reported in 7 of 38 patients (18%) in the neoGemX group and 5 of 25 (20%) in the GemX group. Three GemX and two neoGemX patients had grade 3 or greater urinary toxicity. Forty-nine patients completed questionnaires and were included in the analysis. Scores on the late effects in normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, and analytic scales showed an expected peak by week 4 of treatment. There was no statistically significant difference between mean scores at baseline and 12 months after treatment completion or between the neoGemX and GemX groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that GemX, alone or following NAC, has manageable toxicity and acceptable treatment completion rates. Allowing for small patient numbers and the nonrandomized nature of this study, these results do not suggest any additional toxicity from the use of NAC prior to GemX.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Thompson
- University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay, Lancaster, UK; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Preston, UK.
| | - Nuradh Joseph
- General Hospital Polonnaruwa, Ministry of Health, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka
| | - Benjamin Sanderson
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - John Logue
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - James Wylie
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Tony Elliott
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Jeanette Lyons
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Carmel Anandadas
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Rouprêt M, Neuzillet Y, Masson-Lecomte A, Colin P, Compérat E, Dubosq F, Houédé N, Larré S, Pignot G, Puech P, Roumiguié M, Xylinas E, Méjean A. Recommandations en onco-urologie 2016-2018 du CCAFU : Tumeurs de la vessie. Prog Urol 2016; 27 Suppl 1:S67-S91. [DOI: 10.1016/s1166-7087(16)30704-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
8
|
Concurrent gemcitabine and radiotherapy for the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A pooled individual data analysis of eight phase I-II trials. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121:193-198. [PMID: 27720221 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2016] [Revised: 09/03/2016] [Accepted: 09/09/2016] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although radical cystectomy is still considered the standard of care for most localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients, bladder-sparing strategies with chemoradiotherapy have demonstrated comparable local control and survival rates when adjusting for tumor stage. We present a pooled analysis of individual patient data out of published trials with gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for MIBC. METHODS AND MATERIALS Individual patient data were collected from Institutions that enrolled patients into trials that evaluated gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for MIBC. RESULTS We identified eight studies published on gemcitabine-based radiochemotherapy and 190 patients were included in this analysis. A complete response (CR) was observed in 166 patients (93%). After a median follow up of 44.5months, 36 patients (18.9%) presented a bladder recurrence and 14 subsequently underwent cystectomy. The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and cystectomy-free survival (CFS) rates were 59%, 80.9%, and 93.3%, respectively. The achievement of CR after chemoradiotherapy was the main prognostic variable which was associated with improved OS, DSS, and CFS. The treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION This pooled analysis strengthens the evidence that chemoradiotherapy regimens with concurrent gemcitabine are feasible and well tolerated. Prospective randomized controlled trials are on-going to definitively assess the efficacy of gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for MIBC.
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee YT, Wu YT, Yen CC, Chang MH, Chang YH, Chung HJ, Lin TP, Liu CJ, Liu JH. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in elderly patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A single-center experience. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrpr.2016.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
10
|
Bamias A, Tsantoulis P, Zilli T, Papatsoris A, Caparrotti F, Kyratsas C, Tzannis K, Stravodimos K, Chrisofos M, Wirth GJ, Skolarikos A, Mitropoulos D, Constantinides CA, Deliveliotis C, Iselin CE, Miralbell R, Dietrich P, Dimopoulos MA. Outcome of patients with nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer not undergoing cystectomy after treatment with noncisplatin-based chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy: a retrospective analysis. Cancer Med 2016; 5:1098-107. [PMID: 27004619 PMCID: PMC4924368 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2015] [Revised: 02/03/2016] [Accepted: 02/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or combinations can be used in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) not undergoing cystectomy. Nevertheless, unfitness for cystectomy is frequently associated with unfitness for other therapeutic modalities. We report the outcome of patients with MIBC who did not undergo cystectomy and did not receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Selection criteria for the study were nonmetastatic MIBC, no cystectomy, no cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy should have been used aside from TURBT. Forty-nine patients (median age 79), managed between April 2001 and January 2012, were included in this analysis. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, while 76% were unfit for cisplatin. Treatment included radiotherapy (n = 7), carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 25), carboplatin-based chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 10), and radiochemotherapy (n = 7). Five-year event-free rate was 26% (standard error [SE] = 7) for overall survival, 23% (SE = 7) for progression-free survival, and 30 (SE = 8) for cancer-specific survival (CSS). Patients who were treated with combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy had significantly longer CSS compared to those treated with radiotherapy or chemotherapy only (5-year CSS rate: 16% [SE 8] vs. 63% [SE 15], P = 0.053). Unfit-for-cystectomy patients frequently receive suboptimal nonsurgical treatment. Their outcome was poor. Combining chemotherapy with radiotherapy produced better outcomes and should be prospectively evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aristotle Bamias
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- Department of Clinical TherapeuticsMedical SchoolAthens UniversityAthensGreece
| | - Petros Tsantoulis
- Department of Oncology and Centre de Recherche Clinique Dubois FerrariGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation OncologyGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Athanasios Papatsoris
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 2 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | | | - Christos Kyratsas
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 2 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Kimon Tzannis
- Department of Clinical TherapeuticsMedical SchoolAthens UniversityAthensGreece
| | - Kostas Stravodimos
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 1 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Michael Chrisofos
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 2 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Gregory J. Wirth
- Department of Urology DepartmentGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Andreas Skolarikos
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 2 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Dionysios Mitropoulos
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 1 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | | | - Charalambos Deliveliotis
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- 2 Department of UrologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
| | | | - Raymond Miralbell
- Department of Radiation OncologyGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Pierre‐Yves Dietrich
- Department of Oncology and Centre de Recherche Clinique Dubois FerrariGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Meletios A. Dimopoulos
- Hellenic Genito‐Urinary Cancer GroupAthensGreece
- Department of Clinical TherapeuticsMedical SchoolAthens UniversityAthensGreece
| |
Collapse
|