Luca Boeri1,2, Matteo Soligo3, Igor Frank3, Stephen A Boorjian3, R Houston Thompson3, Matthew Tollefson3, Robert Tarrel3, Fernando J Quevedo4, John C Cheville5, R Jeffrey Karnes3. 1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. dr.lucaboeri@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. dr.lucaboeri@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of and factors' association with receiving suboptimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and its impact on survival outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: We reviewed 1119 patients treated with NAC and/or RC for cT2-cT4N0M0 BC. Patients were segregated into three groups: (i) suboptimal NAC (received < 3 cycles of cisplatin-based NAC or non-cisplatin-based regimen), (ii) optimal NAC and (iii) no NAC. Clinical characteristics were compared among groups. Logistic regression analyses tested the association between clinical variables and the odds of receiving suboptimal NAC. To adjust for potential baseline confounders, propensity score matching was performed. Pathologic outcomes were compared between groups and Cox regression analyses tested the risk factors associated with recurrence, overall (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: Before matching, 84/315 (26.6%) patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen. Lower general health status and impaired renal functions were the most significant factors associated with the administration of a suboptimal NAC. After matching, the optimal NAC group achieved higher rates of complete pathological response as compared to the suboptimal group (p = 0.03). Suboptimal NAC (HR 1.77; p = 0.015) and no NAC (HR 1.52; p = 0.03) were both associated with higher risk of recurrence and OM (HR 1.71; p = 0.02 and HR 1.61; p = 0.02) as compared to optimal NAC. CONCLUSION: One out of four MIBC patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen before RC. Receiving a suboptimal NAC regimen was associated with worse disease recurrence and survival outcomes following surgery, as compared to an optimal NAC regimen.
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of and factors' association with receiving suboptimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and its impact on survival outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: We reviewed 1119 patients treated with NAC and/or RC for cT2-cT4N0M0 BC. Patients were segregated into three groups: (i) suboptimal NAC (received < 3 cycles of cisplatin-based NAC or non-cisplatin-based regimen), (ii) optimal NAC and (iii) no NAC. Clinical characteristics were compared among groups. Logistic regression analyses tested the association between clinical variables and the odds of receiving suboptimal NAC. To adjust for potential baseline confounders, propensity score matching was performed. Pathologic outcomes were compared between groups and Cox regression analyses tested the risk factors associated with recurrence, overall (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: Before matching, 84/315 (26.6%) patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen. Lower general health status and impaired renal functions were the most significant factors associated with the administration of a suboptimal NAC. After matching, the optimal NAC group achieved higher rates of complete pathological response as compared to the suboptimal group (p = 0.03). Suboptimal NAC (HR 1.77; p = 0.015) and no NAC (HR 1.52; p = 0.03) were both associated with higher risk of recurrence and OM (HR 1.71; p = 0.02 and HR 1.61; p = 0.02) as compared to optimal NAC. CONCLUSION: One out of four MIBC patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen before RC. Receiving a suboptimal NAC regimen was associated with worse disease recurrence and survival outcomes following surgery, as compared to an optimal NAC regimen.
Authors: Elisabeth E Fransen van de Putte; Laura S Mertens; Richard P Meijer; Michiel S van der Heijden; Axel Bex; Henk G van der Poel; J Martijn Kerst; Andries M Bergman; Simon Horenblas; Bas W G van Rhijn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Malte W Vetterlein; Stephanie A M Wankowicz; Thomas Seisen; Richard Lander; Björn Löppenberg; Felix K-H Chun; Mani Menon; Maxine Sun; Justine A Barletta; Toni K Choueiri; Joaquim Bellmunt; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mark A Preston Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Woonyoung Choi; Sima Porten; Seungchan Kim; Daniel Willis; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Beat Roth; Tiewei Cheng; Mai Tran; I-Ling Lee; Jonathan Melquist; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Shizhen Zhang; Shanna Pretzsch; Keith Baggerly; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Bogdan Czerniak; Colin P N Dinney; David J McConkey Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Patrick J Hensley; Jeffrey Goodwin; Daniel L Davenport; Stephen E Strup; Andrew James Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Guru Sonpavde; Bryan H Goldman; V O Speights; Seth P Lerner; David P Wood; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ronald B Natale; H Barton Grossman; E David Crawford Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David C Smith; Niklas J Mackler; Rodney L Dunn; Maha Hussain; David Wood; Cheryl T Lee; Martin Sanda; Ulka Vaishampayan; Daniel P Petrylak; David I Quinn; Kathleen Beekman; James E Montie Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450