BACKGROUND: To determine the indications for post-chemotherapy consolidative surgery in patients with clinical lymph node (LN) metastatic (cN+) urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS: Sixty UC patients with measurable cN+ but without detectable systemic visceral/bone dissemination received induction platinum-based chemotherapy. Consolidative surgery was offered to all patients except for those with progressive disease. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological response to induction chemotherapy and identified prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The primary cancer site was the urinary bladder in 31 patients (52 %) and upper urinary tract in 29 (48 %). The median number of chemotherapy courses was 4. Forty-five patients (75 %) showed a clinically objective response to the induction chemotherapy. Fifty-one patients (85 %) underwent subsequent consolidative surgery. Histopathological analysis indicated pT0 status in 10 (20 %) and pN0 in 17 (33 %). When all 60 patients were considered, clinical tumor response was found to be significantly correlated with achievement of pathological complete response. At the median follow-up of 22 months, the median progression-free survival and OS periods were excellent: 18.6 and 31.6 months, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, clinical tumor response was found to be an independent pre-surgical prognostic factor for OS, and pathologically negative lymph node, negative resection margin, more LNs removed, and negative lymphovascular invasion were found to be independent post-surgical prognostic parameters for OS. CONCLUSIONS: The median OS in induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative surgery was very encouraging. Our results suggest that achieving a good clinical response to pre-surgical induction chemotherapy is a good indication for subsequent consolidative surgery in UC patients with cN+ to improve OS through a good pathological response.
BACKGROUND: To determine the indications for post-chemotherapy consolidative surgery in patients with clinical lymph node (LN) metastatic (cN+) urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS: Sixty UC patients with measurable cN+ but without detectable systemic visceral/bone dissemination received induction platinum-based chemotherapy. Consolidative surgery was offered to all patients except for those with progressive disease. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological response to induction chemotherapy and identified prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The primary cancer site was the urinary bladder in 31 patients (52 %) and upper urinary tract in 29 (48 %). The median number of chemotherapy courses was 4. Forty-five patients (75 %) showed a clinically objective response to the induction chemotherapy. Fifty-one patients (85 %) underwent subsequent consolidative surgery. Histopathological analysis indicated pT0 status in 10 (20 %) and pN0 in 17 (33 %). When all 60 patients were considered, clinical tumor response was found to be significantly correlated with achievement of pathological complete response. At the median follow-up of 22 months, the median progression-free survival and OS periods were excellent: 18.6 and 31.6 months, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, clinical tumor response was found to be an independent pre-surgical prognostic factor for OS, and pathologically negative lymph node, negative resection margin, more LNs removed, and negative lymphovascular invasion were found to be independent post-surgical prognostic parameters for OS. CONCLUSIONS: The median OS in induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative surgery was very encouraging. Our results suggest that achieving a good clinical response to pre-surgical induction chemotherapy is a good indication for subsequent consolidative surgery in UC patients with cN+ to improve OS through a good pathological response.
Authors: Richard P Meijer; Laura S Mertens; Bas W van Rhijn; Axel Bex; Henk G van der Poel; Wim Meinhardt; J Martijn Kerst; Andre M Bergman; Annemarie Fioole-Bruining; Erik van Werkhoven; Simon Horenblas Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: P M Dodd; J A McCaffrey; H Herr; M Mazumdar; J Bacik; G Higgins; M G Boyle; H I Scher; D F Bajorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J A Nieuwenhuijzen; A Bex; W Meinhardt; J M Kerst; J H Schornagel; H VAN Tinteren; S Horenblas Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul Sweeney; Randall Millikan; Machelle Donat; Christopher G Wood; Arlene Siefker Radtke; Curtis A Pettaway; H Barton Grossman; Colin P N Dinney; David A Swanson; Louis L Pisters Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Arlene O Siefker-Radtke; Colin P Dinney; Yu Shen; Dallas L Williams; Ashish M Kamat; H Barton Grossman; Randall E Millikan Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew I Milowsky; David M Nanus; Fernando C Maluf; Svetlana Mironov; Weiji Shi; Alexia Iasonos; Jamie Riches; Ashley Regazzi; Dean F Bajorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Piyush K Agarwal; H Barton Grossman; Dan Leibovici; Mark F Munsell; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Louis L Pisters; David A Swanson; Colin P N Dinney; Ashish M Kamat Journal: Urology Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: S D Fosså; C Sternberg; H I Scher; C H Theodore; B Mead; D Dearnaley; J T Roberts; E Skovlund Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mark Warren; Michael Kolinsky; Christina M Canil; Piotr Czaykowski; Srikala S Sridhar; Peter C Black; Christopher M Booth; Wassim Kassouf; Libni Eapen; Som D Mukherjee; Normand Blais; Bernhard J Eigl; Eric Winquist; Naveen S Basappa; Scott A North Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 1.862