PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to confer a survival advantage in phase III studies. Although cisplatin and gemcitabine are often used in this setting, a comprehensive evaluation of this regimen is lacking. In this review we summarize the efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer based on currently published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in April 2012 searching MEDLINE® databases. Articles were selected if they included patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer, evaluated the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine as neoadjuvant treatment, and reported pathological data after cystectomy. Cisplatin and gemcitabine dosing regimens and clinical data were further summarized using weighted averages. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 164 patients were published between 2007 and 2012. The majority of patients (79%) received cisplatin and gemcitabine on a 21-day cycle. A weighted average of 19.2 lymph nodes was obtained at cystectomy, and 29.7% of patients were found to have pN1 disease. Pathological down staging to pT0 and less than pT2 occurred in 42 (25.6%) and 67 (46.5%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine yield appreciable pathological response rates in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. Since pathological response has been implicated as a potential surrogate for survival in muscle invasive bladder cancer, these data suggest that neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine may warrant further prospective assessment.
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to confer a survival advantage in phase III studies. Although cisplatin and gemcitabine are often used in this setting, a comprehensive evaluation of this regimen is lacking. In this review we summarize the efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer based on currently published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in April 2012 searching MEDLINE® databases. Articles were selected if they included patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer, evaluated the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine as neoadjuvant treatment, and reported pathological data after cystectomy. Cisplatin and gemcitabine dosing regimens and clinical data were further summarized using weighted averages. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 164 patients were published between 2007 and 2012. The majority of patients (79%) received cisplatin and gemcitabine on a 21-day cycle. A weighted average of 19.2 lymph nodes was obtained at cystectomy, and 29.7% of patients were found to have pN1 disease. Pathological down staging to pT0 and less than pT2 occurred in 42 (25.6%) and 67 (46.5%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine yield appreciable pathological response rates in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. Since pathological response has been implicated as a potential surrogate for survival in muscle invasive bladder cancer, these data suggest that neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine may warrant further prospective assessment.
Authors: Hans von der Maase; Lisa Sengelov; James T Roberts; Sergio Ricci; Luigi Dogliotti; T Oliver; Malcolm J Moore; Annamaria Zimmermann; Michael Arning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel Herchenhorn; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Fabio A Peixoto; Franz S de Campos; Valdelice O Santos; Denise M Moreira; Hedilene Cardoso; Isabele A Small; Carlos G Ferreira Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Cora N Sternberg; S Machele Donat; Joaquim Bellmunt; Randall E Millikan; Walter Stadler; Pieter De Mulder; Amir Sherif; Hans von der Maase; Taiji Tsukamoto; Mark S Soloway Journal: Urology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: T A Splinter; H I Scher; L Denis; R Bukowski; S Simon; I Klimberg; M Soloway; N J Vogelzang; H van Tinteren; H Herr Journal: J Urol Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ming Yin; Monika Joshi; Richard P Meijer; Michael Glantz; Sheldon Holder; Harold A Harvey; Matthew Kaag; Elisabeth E Fransen van de Putte; Simon Horenblas; Joseph J Drabick Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-04-06
Authors: Homayoun Zargar; Patrick N Espiritu; Adrian S Fairey; Laura S Mertens; Colin P Dinney; Maria C Mir; Laura-Maria Krabbe; Michael S Cookson; Niels-Erik Jacobsen; Nilay M Gandhi; Joshua Griffin; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Nikhil Vasdev; Evan Y Yu; David Youssef; Evanguelos Xylinas; Nicholas J Campain; Wassim Kassouf; Marc A Dall'Era; Jo-An Seah; Cesar E Ercole; Simon Horenblas; Srikala S Sridhar; John S McGrath; Jonathan Aning; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jonathan L Wright; Andrew C Thorpe; Todd M Morgan; Jeff M Holzbeierlein; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Scott North; Daniel A Barocas; Yair Lotan; Jorge A Garcia; Andrew J Stephenson; Jay B Shah; Bas W van Rhijn; Siamak Daneshmand; Philippe E Spiess; Peter C Black Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jo-An Seah; Normand Blais; Scott North; Yasmin Rahim; Dean Ruether; Peter C Black; Alexandre R Zlotta; Lori Wood; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Sumanta K Pal; Nora Ruel; Sergio Villegas; Mark Chang; Kara DeWalt; Timothy G Wilson; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Bertram E Yuh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 3.240