| Literature DB >> 30650143 |
Gareth O Griffiths1, Richard A Cowan2, Kenneth M Grigor3, Barbara M Uscinska4, Matthew Sydes4, Martin Russell5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pure squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the urinary tract is rare in the UK and has a poor prognosis compared with transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). Cisplatin based chemotherapy has been shown to be effective in TCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30650143 PMCID: PMC6334943 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CONSORT diagram.
Patient characteristics.
| Patient Characteristics | Number (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | <= 50 | 12 (32%) |
| 51–60 | 10 (26%) | |
| 61–70 | 9 (24%) | |
| >= 71 | 7 (18%) | |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 57 (47, 70) | |
| Sex | Male | 21 (55%) |
| Female | 17 (45%) | |
| WHO performance Status | 0: Normal activity | 15 (40%) |
| 1: Restricted | 14 (37%) | |
| 2: Ambulatory | 8 (21%) | |
| 3: Limited self-care | 1 (3%) | |
| Primary site of tumour | Bladder | 36 (95%) |
| Other site | 2 (5%) | |
| Previous treatment to primary | None | 26 (68%) |
| Surgery | 8 (21%) | |
| Radiotherapy | 4 (11%) | |
| Other (e.g. chemo) | 0 (0)% | |
| Tumour category | T2 | 2 (5%) |
| T3 | 25 (66%) | |
| T4 | 9 (24%) | |
| TX | 2 (5%) | |
| Lymph nodes involvement | N0 | 23 (60%) |
| N1 | 4 (10%) | |
| N2 | 6 (16%) | |
| N3 | 1 (3%) | |
| N4 | 1 (3%) | |
| NX | 3 (8%) | |
| Distant metastases | M0 | 32 (84%) |
| M1 | 5 (13%) | |
| MX | 1 (3%) | |
| Tumour present | Yes | 38 (100%) |
| Tumour type | Squamous cell | 36 (95%) |
| TCC with squamous | 1 (3%) | |
| Other | 1 (3%) | |
| Tumour grade | G2 | 5 (13%) |
| G3 | 33 (86%) | |
| Muscle present | No | 4 (11%) |
| Yes | 34 (89%) | |
| Muscle (or prostate) invaded | Yes | 33 (87%) |
| Equivocal | 1 (3%) | |
| Not assessable | 4 (11%) | |
| Total | 38 |
Overall outcome.
| Outcome | Results | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint—all patients | ALL patients (n = 38) | SCC patients (n = 36) |
| Post-chemotherapy overall response | ||
| Complete response | 5 (13%) | 4 (11%) |
| Partial response | 10 (26%) | 9 (25%) |
| No change | 9 (24%) | 9 (25%) |
| Progression | 6 (16%) | 6 (17%) |
| Not assessable | 8 (21%) | 8 (22%) |
| ORR = 15/38 | ORR = 13/36 | |
| 39% (95% CI 24%, 55%) | 36% (95% CI 20%,52%) |
Median post-chemotherapy assessment was at 8.9 weeks (Q1, 5.3, Q3 11)
Treatment received.
| Day | Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | No. pts with cycle | 37 | 28 | 22 | |
| (100mg/m2) | No. pts received C | 37 | 27 | 22 | |
| Median mg/m2 | 100.0 | 98.4 | 98.6 | ||
| (Q1, Q3) | (98.9,100.0) | (50.0, 100.0) | (50.0, 100.0) | ||
| 1 | No. pts with cycle | 37 | 28 | 22 | |
| (30mg/m2) | No. pts received M | 36 | 27 | 22 | |
| Median mg/m2 | 30.0 | 29.8 | 29.9 | ||
| (Q1, Q3) | (29.8, 30.3) | (27.8, 30.2) | (29.4, 30.1) | ||
| 8 | No. pts with cycle | 37 | 28 | 22 | |
| (30mg/m2) | No. pts received M | 26 | 22 | 17 | |
| Median mg/m2 | 30.0 | 29.4 | 29.8 | ||
| (Q1, Q3) | (29.4, 30.3) | (27.8, 30.2) | (28.9, 30.1) | ||
| 1 | No. pts with cycle | 37 | 28 | 22 | |
| (4mg/m2) | No. pts received V | 37 | 27 | 22 | |
| Median mg/m2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | ||
| (Q1, Q3) | (3.9, 4.0) | (3.7, 4.1) | (3.9, 4.0) | ||
| 8 | No. pts with cycle | 37 | 28 | 22 | |
| (4mg/m2) | No. pts received V | 25 | 23 | 17 | |
| Median mg/m2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | ||
| (Q1, Q3) | (3.9, 4.0) | (3.7, 4.0) | (3.8, 4.0) |
1 missing dose data on 1 patient
3 missing dose data on 3 patients
Fig 2Kaplan-Meier curve of overall survival.