PURPOSE: The combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) represents the standard regimen for inoperable or metastatic urothelial cancer, but its toxicity is significant. We previously reported a 52% response rate (RR) using a docetaxel and cisplatin (DC) combination. The toxicity of this regimen compared favorably with that reported for MVAC. We thus designed a randomized phase III trial to compare DC with MVAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with inoperable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma; adequate bone marrow, renal, liver, and cardiac function; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2 were randomly assigned to receive MVAC at standard doses or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. RESULT: Two hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned (MVAC, 109 patients; DC, 111 patients). Treatment with MVAC resulted in superior RR (54.2% v 37.4%; P =.017), median time to progression (TTP; 9.4 v 6.1 months; P =.003) and median survival (14.2 v 9.3 months; P =.026). After adjusting for prognostic factors, difference in TTP remained significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P =.005), whereas survival difference was nonsignificant at the 5% level (HR, 1.31; P =.089). MVAC caused more frequent grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (35.4% v 19.2%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (5.7% v 0.9%; P =.046), and neutropenic sepsis (11.6% v 3.8%; P =.001). Toxicity of MVAC was considerably lower than that previously reported for MVAC administered without G-CSF. CONCLUSION:MVAC is more effective than DC in advanced urothelial cancer. G-CSF-supported MVAC is well tolerated and could be used instead of classic MVAC as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) represents the standard regimen for inoperable or metastatic urothelial cancer, but its toxicity is significant. We previously reported a 52% response rate (RR) using a docetaxel and cisplatin (DC) combination. The toxicity of this regimen compared favorably with that reported for MVAC. We thus designed a randomized phase III trial to compare DC with MVAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with inoperable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma; adequate bone marrow, renal, liver, and cardiac function; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2 were randomly assigned to receive MVAC at standard doses or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. RESULT: Two hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned (MVAC, 109 patients; DC, 111 patients). Treatment with MVAC resulted in superior RR (54.2% v 37.4%; P =.017), median time to progression (TTP; 9.4 v 6.1 months; P =.003) and median survival (14.2 v 9.3 months; P =.026). After adjusting for prognostic factors, difference in TTP remained significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P =.005), whereas survival difference was nonsignificant at the 5% level (HR, 1.31; P =.089). MVAC caused more frequent grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (35.4% v 19.2%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (5.7% v 0.9%; P =.046), and neutropenic sepsis (11.6% v 3.8%; P =.001). Toxicity of MVAC was considerably lower than that previously reported for MVAC administered without G-CSF. CONCLUSION:MVAC is more effective than DC in advanced urothelial cancer. G-CSF-supported MVAC is well tolerated and could be used instead of classic MVAC as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Authors: Aristotelis Bamias; Kimon Tzannis; Christina Bamia; Lauren C Harshman; Simon Crabb; Elizabeth R Plimack; Sumanta Pal; Ugo De Giorgi; Sylvain Ladoire; Christine Theodore; Neeraj Agarwal; Evan Y Yu; Guenter Niegisch; Cora N Sternberg; Sandy Srinivas; Ulka Vaishampayan; Andrea Necchi; Michalis Liontos; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Thomas Powles; Joaquim Bellmunt; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Jung Yong Hong; Moon Ki Choi; Ji Eun Uhm; Min Jae Park; Jeeyun Lee; Se Hoon Park; Joon Oh Park; Won Seog Kim; Won Ki Kang; Hyun Moo Lee; Han Yong Choi; Hoyeong Lim Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: M N Pham; A B Apolo; M De Santis; M D Galsky; B C Leibovich; L L Pisters; A O Siefker-Radtke; G Sonpavde; G D Steinberg; C N Sternberg; S T Tagawa; A Z Weizer; M E Woods; M I Milowsky Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.226