Thomas Seisen1, Asha Jamzadeh2, Jeffrey J Leow1, Morgan Rouprêt3, Alexander P Cole1, Stuart R Lipsitz1, Adam S Kibel1, Paul L Nguyen4, Maxine Sun1, Mani Menon2, Joaquim Bellmunt5, Toni K Choueiri5, Quoc-Dien Trinh1. 1. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Despite existing evidence of a benefit associated with cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after radical cystectomy (RC) for chemotherapy-naive patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), to our knowledge, no studies have addressed the effectiveness of AC in those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of AC vs observation for patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB previously treated with NAC and RC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational cohort study used the National Cancer Data Base (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2012) to identify individuals who received NAC and RC followed by AC or observation for pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: After multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed with a 6-month conditional landmark to compare overall survival (OS) among patients who received NAC and RC followed by AC vs observation. In addition, exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the heterogeneity of the treatment effect according to age (continuous), sex (female vs male), Charlson comorbidity index (≥1 vs 0), pT/N stage (pT3/T4N0 vs pTanyN+), and surgical margin status (positive vs negative) by testing interaction terms within the IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: Of the 788 patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.4] years; 603 [76.5%] male and 185 [23.5%] female), 184 (23.4%) received NAC and RC followed by AC and 604 (76.6%) received NAC and RC followed by observation. The 6-month conditional landmark, IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves showed that median OS was significantly longer for NAC and RC followed by AC (29.9 months; interquartile range, 15.1-85.4 months) vs NAC and RC followed by observation (24.2 months; interquartile range, 12.9-58.9 months) (P = .046). The 5-year IPTW-adjusted rates of OS were 36.8% for NAC and RC followed by AC vs 24.7% for NAC and RC followed by observation. In the IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, NAC and RC followed by AC was associated with a significant OS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = .046). Interaction term analyses indicated that the OS benefit of NAC and RC followed by AC decreased significantly with age (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .02), whereas no significant interaction was observed with sex (P = .82), Charlson comorbidity index (P = .51), pT/N stage (P = .95), and surgical margin status (P = .29). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that AC after NAC and RC may be associated with an OS benefit for patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB. The present findings should be considered as preliminary evidence to conduct a randomized clinical trial to address this association.
IMPORTANCE: Despite existing evidence of a benefit associated with cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after radical cystectomy (RC) for chemotherapy-naive patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), to our knowledge, no studies have addressed the effectiveness of AC in those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of AC vs observation for patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB previously treated with NAC and RC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational cohort study used the National Cancer Data Base (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2012) to identify individuals who received NAC and RC followed by AC or observation for pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: After multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed with a 6-month conditional landmark to compare overall survival (OS) among patients who received NAC and RC followed by AC vs observation. In addition, exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the heterogeneity of the treatment effect according to age (continuous), sex (female vs male), Charlson comorbidity index (≥1 vs 0), pT/N stage (pT3/T4N0 vs pTanyN+), and surgical margin status (positive vs negative) by testing interaction terms within the IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: Of the 788 patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.4] years; 603 [76.5%] male and 185 [23.5%] female), 184 (23.4%) received NAC and RC followed by AC and 604 (76.6%) received NAC and RC followed by observation. The 6-month conditional landmark, IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves showed that median OS was significantly longer for NAC and RC followed by AC (29.9 months; interquartile range, 15.1-85.4 months) vs NAC and RC followed by observation (24.2 months; interquartile range, 12.9-58.9 months) (P = .046). The 5-year IPTW-adjusted rates of OS were 36.8% for NAC and RC followed by AC vs 24.7% for NAC and RC followed by observation. In the IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, NAC and RC followed by AC was associated with a significant OS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = .046). Interaction term analyses indicated that the OS benefit of NAC and RC followed by AC decreased significantly with age (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .02), whereas no significant interaction was observed with sex (P = .82), Charlson comorbidity index (P = .51), pT/N stage (P = .95), and surgical margin status (P = .29). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that AC after NAC and RC may be associated with an OS benefit for patients with pT3/T4 and/or pN+ UCB. The present findings should be considered as preliminary evidence to conduct a randomized clinical trial to address this association.
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; William Martin-Doyle; Padma S Rajagopal; Chirayu G Patel; Erin M Anderson; Andrew T Rothman; Richard J Cote; Yuksel Urun; Steven L Chang; Toni K Choueiri; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Kristian D Stensland; Erin Moshier; John P Sfakianos; Russell B McBride; Che-Kai Tsao; Martin Casey; Paolo Boffetta; William K Oh; Madhu Mazumdar; Juan P Wisnivesky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter E Clark; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Philippe E Spiess; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Guru Sonpavde; Gregory R Pond; Toni K Choueiri; Stephanie Mullane; Guenter Niegisch; Peter Albers; Andrea Necchi; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Carlo Buonerba; Antonio Rozzi; Kazumasa Matsumoto; Jae-Lyun Lee; Hiroshi Kitamura; Haruki Kume; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Thierry Lebret; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Harman Maxim Bruins; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; James Dunn; Mathieu Rouanne; Yann Neuzillet; Erik Veskimäe; Antoine G van der Heijden; Georgios Gakis; Maria J Ribal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Michael Kongnyuy; Pranav Sharma; Mayer N Fishman; Scott M Gilbert; Michael A Poch; Julio M Pow-Sang; Philippe E Spiess; Jingsong Zhang; Wade J Sexton Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Izak Faiena; Amirali Salmasi; Neil Mendhiratta; Andrew T Lenis; Aydin Pooli; Alexandra Drakaki; Kiran Gollapudi; Jeremy Blumberg; Allan J Pantuck; Karim Chamie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Jens Bedke; Karim Chamie; Justin W Collins; Siamak Daneshmand; Petros Grivas; Axel Heidenreich; Edward M Messing; Trevor J Royce; Alexander I Sankin; Mark P Schoenberg; William U Shipley; Arnauld Villers; Jason A Efstathiou; Joaquim Bellmunt; Arnulf Stenzl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marco Moschini; Stefania Zamboni; Agostino Mattei; Alberto Martini; Emanuele Zaffuto; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-08
Authors: Prashant Gabani; Justin Barnes; Alexander J Lin; Soumon Rudra; Peter Oppelt; Douglas Adkins; Jason T Rich; Jose P Zevallos; Mackenzie D Daly; Hiram A Gay; Wade L Thorstad Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 4.452