Arlene O Siefker-Radtke1, Matthew T Campbell1, Mark F Munsell2, Deborah R Harris1, Robert L Carolla3, Lance C Pagliaro4. 1. Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 3. Cancer Research for the Ozarks, Springfield, MO. 4. Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: Pagliaro.Lance@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the response rate of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, we conducted a phase II clinical trial. Patients with renal insufficiency cannot receive standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, and carboplatin-based regimens have proved unsatisfactory. Secondary end points for this study included overall survival, safety of the regimen, and safety of same-day pegfilgrastim dosing. METHODS: A two-stage design was chosen with target response rate of 40%. Key inclusion criteria were metastatic or unresectable urothelial carcinoma, no prior chemotherapy, glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min, and no dialysis. Gemcitabine (900 mg/m(2)), paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)), and doxorubicin (40 mg/m(2)) were administered on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. Pegfilgrastim was given with every cycle on either day 1 or optionally day 2. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled and 39 were treated. Median age was 72 years (range 51-89). There were 7 complete and 15 partial responses, for a response rate of 56.4% (95% confidence interval, 39.6-72.2). Most cycles (82.8%) were given with same-day pegfilgrastim. Notable grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were fatigue and mucositis (10.3% each). There were 4 episodes of neutropenic fever (4 of 198 cycles [2%]; 4 of 39 patients [10.3%]) and no treatment-related deaths. Median overall survival was 14.4 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin is effective first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and renal insufficiency. Neutropenic prophylaxis was acceptable whether pegfilgrastim was given immediately or 24 hours after chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the response rate of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, we conducted a phase II clinical trial. Patients with renal insufficiency cannot receive standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, and carboplatin-based regimens have proved unsatisfactory. Secondary end points for this study included overall survival, safety of the regimen, and safety of same-day pegfilgrastim dosing. METHODS: A two-stage design was chosen with target response rate of 40%. Key inclusion criteria were metastatic or unresectable urothelial carcinoma, no prior chemotherapy, glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min, and no dialysis. Gemcitabine (900 mg/m(2)), paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)), and doxorubicin (40 mg/m(2)) were administered on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. Pegfilgrastim was given with every cycle on either day 1 or optionally day 2. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled and 39 were treated. Median age was 72 years (range 51-89). There were 7 complete and 15 partial responses, for a response rate of 56.4% (95% confidence interval, 39.6-72.2). Most cycles (82.8%) were given with same-day pegfilgrastim. Notable grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were fatigue and mucositis (10.3% each). There were 4 episodes of neutropenic fever (4 of 198 cycles [2%]; 4 of 39 patients [10.3%]) and no treatment-related deaths. Median overall survival was 14.4 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin is effective first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and renal insufficiency. Neutropenic prophylaxis was acceptable whether pegfilgrastim was given immediately or 24 hours after chemotherapy.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
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: L Gianni; P Dombernowsky; G Sledge; M Martin; D Amadori; S G Arbuck; P Ravdin; M Brown; M Messina; D Tuck; C Weil; B Winograd Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Robert Dreicer; Judith Manola; Bruce J Roth; William A See; Steven Kuross; Martin J Edelman; Gary R Hudes; George Wilding Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura Biganzoli; Tanja Cufer; Peter Bruning; Robert E Coleman; Luc Duchateau; Bernardo Rapoport; Marianne Nooij; François Delhaye; D Miles; Aaron Sulkes; A Hamilton; Martine Piccart Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Donald S Kaufman; Michael A Carducci; Tim M Kuzel; Mary B Todd; William K Oh; Matthew R Smith; Zhishen Ye; Steven J Nicol; Walter M Stadler Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Kim Allcott; Jacob Garcia; Scott Stryker; Yanli Li; Maureen T Reiner; Derek Weycker Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tomi Jun; Noah M Hahn; Guru Sonpavde; Constantine Albany; Gary R MacVicar; Ralph Hauke; Mark Fleming; Theodore Gourdin; Bagi Jana; William K Oh; Patricia Taik; Huan Wang; Ajay Ramakrishnan Varadarajan; Andrew Uzilov; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.837