Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064203%3A_____%2F23%3A10458474" target="_blank" >RIV/00064203:_____/23:10458474 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11130/23:10458474

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=09q_M9jWAG" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=09q_M9jWAG</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30217 - Urology and nephrology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Urology Open Science

ISSN

2666-1691

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

51

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

May

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

39-46

Kód UT WoS článku

001006229700001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85150862796