Cargando…
Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study
BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine with platinum is one of the most important first-line treatments for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, continuation of platinum agents results in cumulative toxicities, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neurotoxicity, which lead to discontinuation of chemoth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7658126/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209674 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-772 |
_version_ | 1783608599947247616 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Hyunho Lee, Seung-Hwan Kim, Dong Hwan Lee, Ji Youl Hong, Sung-Hoo Ha, U-Syn Kim, In-Ho |
author_facet | Kim, Hyunho Lee, Seung-Hwan Kim, Dong Hwan Lee, Ji Youl Hong, Sung-Hoo Ha, U-Syn Kim, In-Ho |
author_sort | Kim, Hyunho |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine with platinum is one of the most important first-line treatments for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, continuation of platinum agents results in cumulative toxicities, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neurotoxicity, which lead to discontinuation of chemotherapy after 4–6 cycles despite a favorable response in the patients. The strategy of maintenance treatment can give clinical benefit to patients, but there is no consensus about maintenance treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the gemcitabine maintenance (GEM-m) in mUC patients who achieve disease control from first-line gemcitabine with platinum agents. METHODS: A total of 117 patients who showed response to 4–6 cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin as the first-line palliative chemotherapy were reviewed between 2014 to 2018. Patients who were treated with GEM-m received a 1,000 mg/m(2) dose of gemcitabine on day 1 and 8 for 3 weeks until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The patients who are not treated with GEM-m were followed up with regular radiologic evaluation. Statistical analyses were performed using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards method. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (49.6%) received GEM-m. The median cycle of GEM-m was 4 (range, 1–12). Six patients (10.3%) in the GEM-m group showed an objective response. A median overall survival (OS) of 11.8 months and 9.6 months was observed for the GEM-m and non-GEM-m groups, respectively [HR 0.621; 95% CI, 0.39–0.97; P=0.026]. Additionally, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months and 3.3 months in the GEM-m and non-GEM-m groups, respectively [HR 0.612; 95% CI, 0.41–0.91; P=0.009]. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in 17.2% of patients in the GEM-m and 1.7% in the non-GEM-m group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that GEM-m can be considered in patients who respond to gemcitabine with platinum. Large-scale prospective study should be warranted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7658126 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76581262020-11-17 Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study Kim, Hyunho Lee, Seung-Hwan Kim, Dong Hwan Lee, Ji Youl Hong, Sung-Hoo Ha, U-Syn Kim, In-Ho Transl Androl Urol Original Article BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine with platinum is one of the most important first-line treatments for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, continuation of platinum agents results in cumulative toxicities, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neurotoxicity, which lead to discontinuation of chemotherapy after 4–6 cycles despite a favorable response in the patients. The strategy of maintenance treatment can give clinical benefit to patients, but there is no consensus about maintenance treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the gemcitabine maintenance (GEM-m) in mUC patients who achieve disease control from first-line gemcitabine with platinum agents. METHODS: A total of 117 patients who showed response to 4–6 cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin as the first-line palliative chemotherapy were reviewed between 2014 to 2018. Patients who were treated with GEM-m received a 1,000 mg/m(2) dose of gemcitabine on day 1 and 8 for 3 weeks until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The patients who are not treated with GEM-m were followed up with regular radiologic evaluation. Statistical analyses were performed using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards method. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (49.6%) received GEM-m. The median cycle of GEM-m was 4 (range, 1–12). Six patients (10.3%) in the GEM-m group showed an objective response. A median overall survival (OS) of 11.8 months and 9.6 months was observed for the GEM-m and non-GEM-m groups, respectively [HR 0.621; 95% CI, 0.39–0.97; P=0.026]. Additionally, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months and 3.3 months in the GEM-m and non-GEM-m groups, respectively [HR 0.612; 95% CI, 0.41–0.91; P=0.009]. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in 17.2% of patients in the GEM-m and 1.7% in the non-GEM-m group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that GEM-m can be considered in patients who respond to gemcitabine with platinum. Large-scale prospective study should be warranted. AME Publishing Company 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7658126/ /pubmed/33209674 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-772 Text en 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kim, Hyunho Lee, Seung-Hwan Kim, Dong Hwan Lee, Ji Youl Hong, Sung-Hoo Ha, U-Syn Kim, In-Ho Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title | Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title_full | Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title_fullStr | Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title_full_unstemmed | Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title_short | Gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
title_sort | gemcitabine maintenance versus observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7658126/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209674 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-772 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimhyunho gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT leeseunghwan gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT kimdonghwan gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT leejiyoul gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT hongsunghoo gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT hausyn gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy AT kiminho gemcitabinemaintenanceversusobservationafterfirstlinechemotherapyinpatientswithmetastaticurothelialcarcinomaaretrospectivestudy |