PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are often ineligible for cisplatin-based treatments. A National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored trial assessed the tolerability and efficacy of a gemcitabine-eribulin combination in this population. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve advanced or recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, ureter, or urethra not amenable to curative surgery and not candidates for cisplatin-based therapy were eligible. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined as creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min (but ≥ 30 mL/min), grade 2 neuropathy, or grade 2 hearing loss. Treatment was gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously followed by eribulin 1.4 mg/m2, both on days 1 and 8, repeated in 21-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. A Simon two-stage phase II trial design was used to distinguish between Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 objective response rates of 20% versus 50%. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and March 2017, 24 eligible patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 62 to 88 years) underwent therapy. Performance status of 0, 1, or 2 was seen in 11, 11, and two patients, respectively. Sites of disease included: lymph nodes, 16; lungs, nine; liver, seven; bladder, five; bones, two. Median number of cycles received was four (range, one to 16). Of 24 patients, 12 were confirmed responders; the observed objective response rate was 50% (95% CI, 29% to 71%). Median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 20.4 months), and median progression-free survival was 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7 months). The most common treatment-related any-grade toxicities were fatigue (83% of patients), neutropenia (79%), anemia (63%), alopecia (50%), elevated AST (50%), and constipation, nausea, and thrombocytopenia (42% each). CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine-eribulin treatment response and survival for cisplatin-ineligible patients compare favorably to other regimens. Additional research is needed.
PURPOSE:Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are often ineligible for cisplatin-based treatments. A National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored trial assessed the tolerability and efficacy of a gemcitabine-eribulin combination in this population. METHODS:Patients with treatment-naïve advanced or recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, ureter, or urethra not amenable to curative surgery and not candidates for cisplatin-based therapy were eligible. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined as creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min (but ≥ 30 mL/min), grade 2 neuropathy, or grade 2 hearing loss. Treatment was gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously followed by eribulin 1.4 mg/m2, both on days 1 and 8, repeated in 21-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. A Simon two-stage phase II trial design was used to distinguish between Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 objective response rates of 20% versus 50%. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and March 2017, 24 eligible patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 62 to 88 years) underwent therapy. Performance status of 0, 1, or 2 was seen in 11, 11, and two patients, respectively. Sites of disease included: lymph nodes, 16; lungs, nine; liver, seven; bladder, five; bones, two. Median number of cycles received was four (range, one to 16). Of 24 patients, 12 were confirmed responders; the observed objective response rate was 50% (95% CI, 29% to 71%). Median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 20.4 months), and median progression-free survival was 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7 months). The most common treatment-related any-grade toxicities were fatigue (83% of patients), neutropenia (79%), anemia (63%), alopecia (50%), elevated AST (50%), and constipation, nausea, and thrombocytopenia (42% each). CONCLUSION:Gemcitabine-eribulin treatment response and survival for cisplatin-ineligible patients compare favorably to other regimens. Additional research is needed.
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Javier Cortes; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; David Loesch; Joanne L Blum; Linda T Vahdat; Katarina Petrakova; Philippe Chollet; Alexey Manikas; Veronique Diéras; Thierry Delozier; Vladimir Vladimirov; Fatima Cardoso; Han Koh; Philippe Bougnoux; Corina E Dutcus; Seth Seegobin; Denis Mir; Nicole Meneses; Jantien Wanders; Chris Twelves Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Noah M Hahn; Jonathan Rosenberg; Guru Sonpavde; Thomas Hutson; William K Oh; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas Vogelzang; Cora N Sternberg; Dean F Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Arjun V Balar; Matthew D Galsky; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Thomas Powles; Daniel P Petrylak; Joaquim Bellmunt; Yohann Loriot; Andrea Necchi; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Nancy A Dawson; Michiel S van der Heijden; Robert Dreicer; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Richard W Joseph; Alexandra Drakaki; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Srikala S Sridhar; David I Quinn; Ignacio Durán; David R Shaffer; Bernhard J Eigl; Petros D Grivas; Evan Y Yu; Shi Li; Edward E Kadel; Zachary Boyd; Richard Bourgon; Priti S Hegde; Sanjeev Mariathasan; AnnChristine Thåström; Oyewale O Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Dean F Bajorin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Arjun V Balar; Daniel Castellano; Peter H O'Donnell; Petros Grivas; Jacqueline Vuky; Thomas Powles; Elizabeth R Plimack; Noah M Hahn; Ronald de Wit; Lei Pang; Mary J Savage; Rodolfo F Perini; Stephen M Keefe; Dean Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 41.316