BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Response rates to second-line chemotherapy for advanced UC are low and response duration is short. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with preclinical activity against UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment consisted of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) i.v. twice weekly for two consecutive weeks, followed by a 1-week break. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response + partial response) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Secondary end points included safety, toxicity, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 25 patients with advanced UC previously treated with combination chemotherapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional single-arm trial from December 2003 through April 2005. Only 29% of patients had node-only metastases. Grade 3/4 drug-related toxic effects included thrombocytopenia (4%), anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), sensory neuropathy (6%), hyperglycemia (4%), hypernatremia (4%), fatigue (4%), neuropathic pain (6%), dehydration (4%), and vomiting (4%). No objective responses were observed [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-12]. The median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI = 1.1-2.0 months), and the median survival time was 5.7 months (95% CI = 3.6-8.4 months). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Although bortezomib is well tolerated, it does not have antitumor activity as second-line therapy in UC.
BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Response rates to second-line chemotherapy for advanced UC are low and response duration is short. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with preclinical activity against UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment consisted of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) i.v. twice weekly for two consecutive weeks, followed by a 1-week break. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response + partial response) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Secondary end points included safety, toxicity, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 25 patients with advanced UC previously treated with combination chemotherapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional single-arm trial from December 2003 through April 2005. Only 29% of patients had node-only metastases. Grade 3/4 drug-related toxic effects included thrombocytopenia (4%), anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), sensory neuropathy (6%), hyperglycemia (4%), hypernatremia (4%), fatigue (4%), neuropathic pain (6%), dehydration (4%), and vomiting (4%). No objective responses were observed [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-12]. The median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI = 1.1-2.0 months), and the median survival time was 5.7 months (95% CI = 3.6-8.4 months). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Although bortezomib is well tolerated, it does not have antitumor activity as second-line therapy in UC.
Authors: Robert Z Orlowski; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Beverly S Mitchell; Thomas C Shea; Albert S Baldwin; Stephanie Stahl; Julian Adams; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Peter J Elliott; Christine S Pien; Roberto Guerciolini; Jessica K Anderson; Natalie D Depcik-Smith; Rita Bhagat; Mary Jo Lehman; Steven C Novick; Owen A O'Connor; Steven L Soignet Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D F Bajorin; P M Dodd; M Mazumdar; M Fazzari; J A McCaffrey; H I Scher; H Herr; G Higgins; M G Boyle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C H Yang; A M Gonzalez-Angulo; J M Reuben; D J Booser; L Pusztai; S Krishnamurthy; D Esseltine; J Stec; K R Broglio; R Islam; G N Hortobagyi; M Cristofanilli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Carol Aghajanian; Steven Soignet; Don S Dizon; Christine S Pien; Julian Adams; Peter J Elliott; Paul Sabbatini; Vincent Miller; Martee L Hensley; Sandra Pezzulli; Christina Canales; Adil Daud; David R Spriggs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Manisha H Shah; Donn Young; Hedy L Kindler; Iain Webb; Barbara Kleiber; John Wright; Michael Grever Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yi-He Ling; Leonard Liebes; Bruce Ng; Michael Buckley; Peter J Elliott; Julian Adams; Jian-Dong Jiang; Franco M Muggia; Roman Perez-Soler Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nancy B Davis; David A Taber; Rafat H Ansari; Christopher W Ryan; Christopher George; Everett E Vokes; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Walter M Stadler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey R Infante; David S Mendelson; Howard A Burris; Johanna C Bendell; Anthony W Tolcher; Michael S Gordon; Heidi H Gillenwater; Shirin Arastu-Kapur; Hansen L Wong; Kyriakos P Papadopoulos Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Neerav Shukla; Romel Somwar; Roger S Smith; Sri Ambati; Stanley Munoz; Melinda Merchant; Padraig D'Arcy; Xin Wang; Rachel Kobos; Christophe Antczak; Bhavneet Bhinder; David Shum; Constantin Radu; Guangbin Yang; Barry S Taylor; Charlotte K Y Ng; Britta Weigelt; Inna Khodos; Elisa de Stanchina; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ouathek Ouerfelli; Stig Linder; Hakim Djaballah; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kyriakos P Papadopoulos; Howard A Burris; Michael Gordon; Peter Lee; Edward A Sausville; Peter J Rosen; Amita Patnaik; Richard E Cutler; Zhengping Wang; Susan Lee; Suzanne F Jones; Jeffery R Infante Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-08-25 Impact factor: 3.333