Izak Faiena1,2,3, Amirali Salmasi4,5, Neil Mendhiratta4, Andrew T Lenis4, Aydin Pooli4,5, Alexandra Drakaki4,5,6, Kiran Gollapudi7, Jeremy Blumberg7, Allan J Pantuck4,5, Karim Chamie4,5. 1. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, USA. ifaiena@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Urologic Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, USA. ifaiena@gmail.com. 3. , 300 Stein Plaza, Suite 348, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. ifaiena@gmail.com. 4. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 5. Institute of Urologic Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been shown to improve survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, there are a subset of patients who do not respond or progress despite systemic treatment. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database on patients who underwent a radical cystectomy (RC) with or without NAC from 2006 to 2013 were abstracted. Covariates were balanced using inverse probability weighting methods. The primary outcome of overall survival in patients with residual disease by stage was evaluated using 90-day conditional landmark analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Secondary outcome of predictors of residual disease was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20,128 patients met our inclusion criteria; 16,058 patients underwent RC only (80%) and 4070 underwent RC with NAC (20%). Patients who received NAC were younger and healthier, treated at an academic center, and presented with higher stage. NAC was associated with improved overall survival amongst patients with cT3-4aN0 (HR 0.84 95% CI 0.73-0.97; p = 0.02) and cN+ (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.86; p = 0.001). Predictors of no residual disease were NAC (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.14-0.21; p < 0.001) and treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37-0.60; p < 0.001). Patients with cT3-4a or cN+ had increased odds of having residual UC (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53-2.64; p < 0.001, and OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.43-3.21; p < 0.001, respectively) compared with cT2. CONCLUSION: In patients with residual UC, NAC is associated with a significant survival benefit in higher stage disease only. Furthermore, those treated with NAC or at an academic center were less likely to have residual disease. Given the toxicity of NAC, more prudent patient selection for NAC is warranted and requires further study.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been shown to improve survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, there are a subset of patients who do not respond or progress despite systemic treatment. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database on patients who underwent a radical cystectomy (RC) with or without NAC from 2006 to 2013 were abstracted. Covariates were balanced using inverse probability weighting methods. The primary outcome of overall survival in patients with residual disease by stage was evaluated using 90-day conditional landmark analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Secondary outcome of predictors of residual disease was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20,128 patients met our inclusion criteria; 16,058 patients underwent RC only (80%) and 4070 underwent RC with NAC (20%). Patients who received NAC were younger and healthier, treated at an academic center, and presented with higher stage. NAC was associated with improved overall survival amongst patients with cT3-4aN0 (HR 0.84 95% CI 0.73-0.97; p = 0.02) and cN+ (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.86; p = 0.001). Predictors of no residual disease were NAC (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.14-0.21; p < 0.001) and treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37-0.60; p < 0.001). Patients with cT3-4a or cN+ had increased odds of having residual UC (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53-2.64; p < 0.001, and OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.43-3.21; p < 0.001, respectively) compared with cT2. CONCLUSION: In patients with residual UC, NAC is associated with a significant survival benefit in higher stage disease only. Furthermore, those treated with NAC or at an academic center were less likely to have residual disease. Given the toxicity of NAC, more prudent patient selection for NAC is warranted and requires further study.
Authors: Anthony T Corcoran; Elizabeth Handorf; Daniel Canter; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Justin E Bekelman; Simon P Kim; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Joshua E Rosen; Katherine Mallin; Ashley Loomis; Greer Gay; Bryan Palis; Kathleen Thoburn; Donna Gress; Daniel P McKellar; Lawrence N Shulman; Matthew A Facktor; David P Winchester Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; Igor Frank; Ross J Mason; Robert F Tarrell; Prabin Thapa; John C Cheville; Brian A Costello; Lance C Pagliaro; R Jeffrey Karnes; R Houston Thompson; Matthew K Tollefson; Stephen A Boorjian Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maxine Sun; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Marco Bianchi; Jens Hansen; Firas Abdollah; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Harras B Zaid; Sanjay G Patel; C J Stimson; Matthew J Resnick; Michael S Cookson; Daniel A Barocas; Sam S Chang Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Kyung Seok Han; Jae Young Joung; Kang Su Cho; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Won Seo Park; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.942