PURPOSE: No reliable methods currently exist to predict patient response to intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin given after transurethral resection for high risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. We initiated a prospective clinical trial to determine whether fluorescence in situ hybridization results during bacillus Calmette-Guérin immunotherapy can predict therapy failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidates for standard of care bacillus Calmette-Guérin were offered participation in a clinical trial. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed before bacillus Calmette-Guérin, and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months during bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy with maintenance. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relationship between fluorescence in situ hybridization results and tumor recurrence or progression. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate recurrence-free and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients participated in the study. At a median followup of 24 months 31% of patients had recurrent tumors and 14% experienced disease progression. Patients who had positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results during bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy were 3 to 5 times more likely than those who had negative fluorescence in situ hybridization results to experience recurrent tumors and 5 to 13 times more likely to have disease progression (p <0.01). The timing of positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results also affected outcomes. For example, patients with a negative fluorescence in situ hybridization result at baseline, 6 weeks and 3 months demonstrated an 8.3% recurrence rate compared to 48.1% for those with a positive result at all 3 points. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence in situ hybridization results can identify patients at risk for tumor recurrence and progression during bacillus Calmette-Guérin immunotherapy. This information may be used to counsel patients about alternative treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: No reliable methods currently exist to predict patient response to intravesical immunotherapy with bacillus Calmette-Guérin given after transurethral resection for high risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. We initiated a prospective clinical trial to determine whether fluorescence in situ hybridization results during bacillus Calmette-Guérin immunotherapy can predict therapy failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidates for standard of care bacillus Calmette-Guérin were offered participation in a clinical trial. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed before bacillus Calmette-Guérin, and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months during bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy with maintenance. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relationship between fluorescence in situ hybridization results and tumor recurrence or progression. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate recurrence-free and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients participated in the study. At a median followup of 24 months 31% of patients had recurrent tumors and 14% experienced disease progression. Patients who had positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results during bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy were 3 to 5 times more likely than those who had negative fluorescence in situ hybridization results to experience recurrent tumors and 5 to 13 times more likely to have disease progression (p <0.01). The timing of positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results also affected outcomes. For example, patients with a negative fluorescence in situ hybridization result at baseline, 6 weeks and 3 months demonstrated an 8.3% recurrence rate compared to 48.1% for those with a positive result at all 3 points. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence in situ hybridization results can identify patients at risk for tumor recurrence and progression during bacillus Calmette-Guérin immunotherapy. This information may be used to counsel patients about alternative treatment strategies.
Authors: K C Halling; W King; I A Sokolova; R G Meyer; H M Burkhardt; A C Halling; J C Cheville; T J Sebo; S Ramakumar; C S Stewart; S Pankratz; D J O'Kane; S A Seelig; M M Lieber; R B Jenkins Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tobias Zellweger; Gabriel Benz; Gieri Cathomas; Michael J Mihatsch; Tullio Sulser; Thomas C Gasser; Lukas Bubendorf Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D L Lamm; B A Blumenstein; J D Crissman; J E Montie; J E Gottesman; B A Lowe; M F Sarosdy; R D Bohl; H B Grossman; T M Beck; J T Leimert; E D Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nancy P Caraway; Abha Khanna; Ricardo L Fernandez; Linda Payne; Roland L Bassett; Hua-Zhong Zhang; Ashish Kamat; Ruth L Katz Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael D Bell; Faysal A Yafi; Fadi Brimo; Jordan Steinberg; Armen G Aprikian; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Philip H Kim; Ranjit Sukhu; Billy H Cordon; John P Sfakianos; Daniel D Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Guido Dalbagni; Oscar Lin; Harry W Herr Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ashish M Kamat; Daniel L Willis; Rian J Dickstein; Rooselvelt Anderson; Graciela Nogueras-González; Ruth L Katz; Xifeng Wu; H Barton Grossman; Colin P Dinney Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ashish M Kamat; Joseph Briggman; Diana L Urbauer; Robert Svatek; Graciela M Nogueras González; Roosevelt Anderson; H Barton Grossman; Ferran Prat; Colin P Dinney Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ashish M Kamat; Thomas W Flaig; H Barton Grossman; Badrinath Konety; Donald Lamm; Michael A O'Donnell; Edward Uchio; Jason A Efstathiou; John A Taylor Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 14.432