Cargando…
Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer
BACKGROUND: There are currently no guideline recommendations regarding the treatment of cisplatin-ineligible, clinically lymph node–positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological efficacy of gemcitabine/carboplatin induction chemotherapy (IC) in comparison to cisplati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175724/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014 |
_version_ | 1785040272535584768 |
---|---|
author | von Deimling, Markus Mertens, Laura S. van Rhijn, Bas W.G. Lotan, Yair Spiess, Philippe E. Daneshmand, Siamak Black, Peter C. Pallauf, Maximilian D'Andrea, David Moschini, Marco Soria, Francesco Del Giudice, Francesco Afferi, Luca Laukhtina, Ekaterina Yanagisawa, Takafumi Kawada, Tatsushi Teoh, Jeremy Y.-C. Abufaraj, Mohammad Ploussard, Guillaume Roumiguié, Mathieu Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Babjuk, Marko Gontero, Paolo Xylinas, Evanguelos Rink, Michael Shariat, Shahrokh F. Pradere, Benjamin |
author_facet | von Deimling, Markus Mertens, Laura S. van Rhijn, Bas W.G. Lotan, Yair Spiess, Philippe E. Daneshmand, Siamak Black, Peter C. Pallauf, Maximilian D'Andrea, David Moschini, Marco Soria, Francesco Del Giudice, Francesco Afferi, Luca Laukhtina, Ekaterina Yanagisawa, Takafumi Kawada, Tatsushi Teoh, Jeremy Y.-C. Abufaraj, Mohammad Ploussard, Guillaume Roumiguié, Mathieu Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Babjuk, Marko Gontero, Paolo Xylinas, Evanguelos Rink, Michael Shariat, Shahrokh F. Pradere, Benjamin |
author_sort | von Deimling, Markus |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There are currently no guideline recommendations regarding the treatment of cisplatin-ineligible, clinically lymph node–positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological efficacy of gemcitabine/carboplatin induction chemotherapy (IC) in comparison to cisplatin-based regimens in cN+ BCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational study of 369 patients with cT2–4 N1–3 M0 BCa. INTERVENTION: IC followed by consolidative radical cystectomy (RC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were the pathological objective response (pOR; ypT0/Ta/Tis/T1 N0) rate and the pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0N0) rate. We applied 3:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared across groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between the treatment regimen and survival endpoints were tested in multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, a cohort of 216 patients was available for analysis, of whom 162 received cisplatin-based IC and 54 gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. At RC, 54 patients (25%) had a pOR and 36 (17%) had a pCR. The 2-yr CSS was 59.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.9–69%) for patients who received cisplatin-based IC versus 38.8% (95% CI 26–57.9%) for those who received gemcitabine/carboplatin. For the pOR (p = 0.8), ypN0 status at RC (p = 0.5), and cN1 BCa subgroups (p = 0.7), there was no difference in CSS between cisplatin-based IC and gemcitabine/carboplatin. In the cN1 subgroup, treatment with gemcitabine/carboplatin was not associated with shorter OS (p = 0.2) or CSS (p = 0.1) on multivariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin-based IC seems to be superior to gemcitabine/carboplatin and should be the standard for cisplatin-eligible patients with cN+ BCa. Gemcitabine/carboplatin may be an alternative treatment for selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN+ BCa. In particular, selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN1 disease may benefit from gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicenter study, we found that selected patients with bladder cancer and clinical evidence of lymph node metastasis who cannot receive standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy before surgery to remove their bladder may benefit from chemotherapy with gemcitabine/carboplatin. Patients with a single lymph node metastasis may benefit the most. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10175724 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101757242023-05-13 Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer von Deimling, Markus Mertens, Laura S. van Rhijn, Bas W.G. Lotan, Yair Spiess, Philippe E. Daneshmand, Siamak Black, Peter C. Pallauf, Maximilian D'Andrea, David Moschini, Marco Soria, Francesco Del Giudice, Francesco Afferi, Luca Laukhtina, Ekaterina Yanagisawa, Takafumi Kawada, Tatsushi Teoh, Jeremy Y.-C. Abufaraj, Mohammad Ploussard, Guillaume Roumiguié, Mathieu Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Babjuk, Marko Gontero, Paolo Xylinas, Evanguelos Rink, Michael Shariat, Shahrokh F. Pradere, Benjamin Eur Urol Open Sci Bladder Cancer BACKGROUND: There are currently no guideline recommendations regarding the treatment of cisplatin-ineligible, clinically lymph node–positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological efficacy of gemcitabine/carboplatin induction chemotherapy (IC) in comparison to cisplatin-based regimens in cN+ BCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational study of 369 patients with cT2–4 N1–3 M0 BCa. INTERVENTION: IC followed by consolidative radical cystectomy (RC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were the pathological objective response (pOR; ypT0/Ta/Tis/T1 N0) rate and the pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0N0) rate. We applied 3:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared across groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between the treatment regimen and survival endpoints were tested in multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, a cohort of 216 patients was available for analysis, of whom 162 received cisplatin-based IC and 54 gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. At RC, 54 patients (25%) had a pOR and 36 (17%) had a pCR. The 2-yr CSS was 59.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.9–69%) for patients who received cisplatin-based IC versus 38.8% (95% CI 26–57.9%) for those who received gemcitabine/carboplatin. For the pOR (p = 0.8), ypN0 status at RC (p = 0.5), and cN1 BCa subgroups (p = 0.7), there was no difference in CSS between cisplatin-based IC and gemcitabine/carboplatin. In the cN1 subgroup, treatment with gemcitabine/carboplatin was not associated with shorter OS (p = 0.2) or CSS (p = 0.1) on multivariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin-based IC seems to be superior to gemcitabine/carboplatin and should be the standard for cisplatin-eligible patients with cN+ BCa. Gemcitabine/carboplatin may be an alternative treatment for selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN+ BCa. In particular, selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN1 disease may benefit from gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicenter study, we found that selected patients with bladder cancer and clinical evidence of lymph node metastasis who cannot receive standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy before surgery to remove their bladder may benefit from chemotherapy with gemcitabine/carboplatin. Patients with a single lymph node metastasis may benefit the most. Elsevier 2023-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10175724/ /pubmed/37187719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014 Text en © 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Bladder Cancer von Deimling, Markus Mertens, Laura S. van Rhijn, Bas W.G. Lotan, Yair Spiess, Philippe E. Daneshmand, Siamak Black, Peter C. Pallauf, Maximilian D'Andrea, David Moschini, Marco Soria, Francesco Del Giudice, Francesco Afferi, Luca Laukhtina, Ekaterina Yanagisawa, Takafumi Kawada, Tatsushi Teoh, Jeremy Y.-C. Abufaraj, Mohammad Ploussard, Guillaume Roumiguié, Mathieu Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Babjuk, Marko Gontero, Paolo Xylinas, Evanguelos Rink, Michael Shariat, Shahrokh F. Pradere, Benjamin Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title | Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title_full | Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title_fullStr | Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title_short | Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer |
title_sort | carboplatin induction chemotherapy in clinically lymph node–positive bladder cancer |
topic | Bladder Cancer |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175724/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vondeimlingmarkus carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT mertenslauras carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT vanrhijnbaswg carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT lotanyair carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT spiessphilippee carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT daneshmandsiamak carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT blackpeterc carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT pallaufmaximilian carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT dandreadavid carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT moschinimarco carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT soriafrancesco carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT delgiudicefrancesco carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT afferiluca carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT laukhtinaekaterina carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT yanagisawatakafumi carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT kawadatatsushi carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT teohjeremyyc carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT abufarajmohammad carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT ploussardguillaume carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT roumiguiemathieu carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT karakiewiczpierrei carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT babjukmarko carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT gonteropaolo carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT xylinasevanguelos carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT rinkmichael carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT shariatshahrokhf carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer AT praderebenjamin carboplatininductionchemotherapyinclinicallylymphnodepositivebladdercancer |