Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder and upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
32981193
PubMed Central
PMC8246716
DOI
10.1111/bju.15253
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- #BladderCancer, #blcsm, #uroonc, #utuc, bladder cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, response, survival, upper tract urothelial carcinoma,
- MeSH
- cisplatina terapeutické užití MeSH
- cystektomie MeSH
- deoxycytidin aplikace a dávkování analogy a deriváty MeSH
- doxorubicin terapeutické užití MeSH
- gemcitabin MeSH
- karcinom z přechodných buněk patologie terapie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- methotrexát terapeutické užití MeSH
- míra přežití MeSH
- nádory ledvin patologie terapie MeSH
- nádory močového měchýře patologie terapie MeSH
- nádory močovodu patologie terapie MeSH
- nefroureterektomie MeSH
- neoadjuvantní terapie MeSH
- proporcionální rizikové modely MeSH
- protokoly protinádorové kombinované chemoterapie terapeutické užití MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- srovnávací výzkum účinnosti MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- vinblastin terapeutické užití MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Názvy látek
- cisplatina MeSH
- deoxycytidin MeSH
- doxorubicin MeSH
- gemcitabin MeSH
- methotrexát MeSH
- vinblastin MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To assess the differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) compared to upper tract urothelial carcioma (UTUC) treated with radical surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1299 patients with UCB and 276 with UTUC were obtained from multicentric collaborations. The association of disease location (UCB vs UTUC) with pathological complete response (pCR, defined as a post-treatment pathological stage ypT0N0) and pathological objective response (pOR, defined as ypT0-Ta-Tis-T1N0) after NAC was evaluated using logistic regression analyses. The association with overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was evaluated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A pCR was found in 250 (19.2%) patients with UCB and in 23 (8.3%) with UTUC (P < 0.01). A pOR was found in 523 (40.3%) patients with UCB and in 133 (48.2%) with UTUC (P = 0.02). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients with UTUC were less likely to have a pCR (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.70; P < 0.01) and more likely to have a pOR (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.89-2.08; P < 0.01). On univariable Cox regression analyses, UTUC was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99, P = 0.04) and CSS (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.83; P < 0.01). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, UTUC remained associated with CSS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82; P < 0.01), but not with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Our present findings suggest that the benefit of NAC in UTUC is similar to that found in UCB. These data can be used as a benchmark to contextualise survival outcomes and plan future trial design with NAC in urothelial cancer.
Department of Genitourinary Oncology H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Tampa FL USA
Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology Princess Margaret Cancer Center Toronto ON Canada
Department of Oncology Cross Cancer Institute University of Alberta Edmonton AB Canada
Department of Urologic Sciences University of British Columbia Vancouver BC Canada
Department of Urologic Surgery Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville TN USA
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prag Czech Republic
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology Davis Medical Center University of California at Davis Sacramento CA USA
Department of Urology Freeman Hospital Newcastle Upon Tyne UK
Department of Urology MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
Department of Urology University of Jordan Amman Jordan
Department of Urology University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City KS USA
Department of Urology University of Michigan Health System Ann Arbor MI USA
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX USA
Department of Urology University of Washington Seattle WA USA
Department of Urology Western Health Melbourne Vic Australia
Departments of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York NY USA
Division of Urology Department of Surgery McGill University Health Center Montreal QC Canada
European Association of Urology Research Foundation Arnhem The Netherlands
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland OH USA
Zobrazit více v PubMed
GLOBOCAN 2018, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. International Agency for Research on Cancer Web site. [Internet]. n.d. Available at: http://gco.iarc.fr/. Accessed June 2020
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. Ca Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 7–30 PubMed
Green DA, Rink M, Xylinas E PubMed
Witjes JA, Lebret T, Compérat EM PubMed
Birtle A, Johnson M, Chester J PubMed PMC
Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Compérat E PubMed
Liao RS, Gupta M, Schwen ZR PubMed
Porten S, Siefker‐Radtke AO, Xiao L PubMed PMC
Matin SF, Margulis V, Kamat A PubMed
Almassi N, Gao T, Lee B PubMed
Krabbe L‐M, Lotan Y, Bagrodia A PubMed
Rink M, Ehdaie B, Cha EK PubMed
Catto JWF, Yates DR, Rehman I PubMed
Sfakianos JP, Cha EK, Iyer G PubMed PMC
Aragon‐Ching JB, Nizam A, Henson DE. Carcinomas of the renal pelvis, ureters, and urinary bladder share a carcinogenic field as revealed by epidemiological analysis of tumor registry data. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019;17:436–42 PubMed
Robertson AG, Kim J, Al‐Ahmadie H PubMed PMC
Zargar H, Espiritu PN, Fairey AS PubMed PMC
Chang SS, Bochner BH, Chou R PubMed PMC
Shariat SF, Palapattu GS, Karakiewicz PI PubMed
Janisch F, Shariat SF, Baltzer P PubMed
Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Limitations, of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol 2000; 163: 1693–6 PubMed
Cowan NC, Turney BW, Taylor NJ, McCarthy CL, Crew JP. Multidetector computed tomography urography for diagnosing upper urinary tract urothelial tumour. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1363–70 PubMed
Mathieu R, Bensalah K, Lucca I, Mbeutcha A, Rouprêt M, Shariat SF. Upper urinary tract disease: what we know today and unmet needs. Transl Androl Urol 2015; 4: 261–72 PubMed PMC
Soria F, D’Andrea D, Moschini M PubMed
James AC, Lee FC, Izard JP PubMed
Pietzak EJ, Zabor EC, Bagrodia A PubMed PMC
Robinson BD, Vlachostergios PJ, Bhinder B PubMed PMC
Kamoun A, de Reyniès A, Allory Y PubMed PMC
Seiler R, Ashab HAD, Erho N PubMed
Martini A, Jia R, Ferket BS PubMed PMC
Rosenblatt R, Sherif A, Rintala E PubMed
Igawa M, Urakami S, Shiina H PubMed
Sonpavde G, Goldman BH, Speights VO PubMed PMC
Grossman HB, Natale RB, Tangen CM PubMed
Moussa S, Yafi FA, El‐Hakim A PubMed
Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Grigor KM, Tolley DA, McNeill SA. A comparison of the pathology of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and upper urinary tract. BJU Int 2005; 95: 791–3 PubMed
Osanto S. Neo‐adjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a feasibility phase II randomized clinical trial (URANUS)[Internet], 2016. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02969083. Accessed June 2020
Bartlett VL, Dhruva SS, Shah ND, Ryan P, Ross JS. Feasibility of using real‐world data to replicate clinical trial evidence. Jama Netw Open 2019; 2: e1912869 PubMed PMC
