Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck1, Sagar A Patel1, Randall J Brenneman2, John Christodouleas3, Paul Sargos4, Eric Kim5, Aaron Weiss6, Bruce Hershatter1, Yuan J Rao7, Joel Picus8, Bruce Roth8, Vivek Arora8, Ruben Carmona9, Melissa Reimers8, Mohamed S Zaghloul10, Hiram Gay2, Jeff M Michalski2, Brian C Baumann11. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Département de Radiothérapie, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France. 5. Department of Urology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 10. Radiation Oncology, Children's Cancer Hospital and National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: brian.baumann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
There are limited data on the role of local therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (mUC). In this retrospective cohort analysis, we queried the National Cancer Data Base for patients with newly diagnosed mUC (cT1-4 N0-3 M1). Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment with chemotherapy (CT) alone (n = 4122) and CT plus bladder-directed radiation therapy (CT + RT; n = 337). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analyses and matching and landmark analyses were performed. CT + RT was independently associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.79; p < 0.0001) and this result persisted in matched and landmark analyses. These findings are hypothesis-generating and limited by inherent confounding factors; however, a prospective trial evaluating the impact of bladder RT in mUC is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with bladder cancer that has already spread to other parts of the body, it is unclear if radiation therapy directed at the primary bladder tumor would provide any improvement in survival. In this study, we found that aggressive radiation therapy directed at the bladder combined with chemotherapy may provide a survival benefit in some patients with metastatic bladder cancer compared to chemotherapy alone.
There are limited data on the role of local therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (mUC). In this retrospective cohort analysis, we queried the National Cancer Data Base for patients with newly diagnosed mUC (cT1-4 N0-3 M1). Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment with chemotherapy (CT) alone (n = 4122) and CT plus bladder-directed radiation therapy (CT + RT; n = 337). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analyses and matching and landmark analyses were performed. CT + RT was independently associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.79; p < 0.0001) and this result persisted in matched and landmark analyses. These findings are hypothesis-generating and limited by inherent confounding factors; however, a prospective trial evaluating the impact of bladder RT in mUC is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with bladder cancer that has already spread to other parts of the body, it is unclear if radiation therapy directed at the primary bladder tumor would provide any improvement in survival. In this study, we found that aggressive radiation therapy directed at the bladder combined with chemotherapy may provide a survival benefit in some patients with metastatic bladder cancer compared to chemotherapy alone.
Authors: Chad G Rusthoven; Bernard L Jones; Thomas W Flaig; E David Crawford; Matthew Koshy; David J Sher; Usama Mahmood; Ronald C Chen; Brian F Chapin; Brian D Kavanagh; Thomas J Pugh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Björn Löppenberg; Deepansh Dalela; Patrick Karabon; Akshay Sood; Jesse D Sammon; Christian P Meyer; Maxine Sun; Joachim Noldus; James O Peabody; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mani Menon; Firas Abdollah Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Stéphanie Gazdovich; Lars Budäus; Emanuele Zaffuto; Alberto Briganti; Firas Abdollah; Francesco Montorsi; Jonas Schiffmann; Mani Menon; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Felix Chun; Thomas Steuber; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thomas Seisen; Maxine Sun; Jeffrey J Leow; Mark A Preston; Alexander P Cole; Francisco Gelpi-Hammerschmidt; Nawar Hanna; Christian P Meyer; Adam S Kibel; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Joaquim Bellmunt; Toni K Choueiri; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Harman Max Bruins; Richard Cathomas; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Georgios Gakis; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; Anja Lorch; Yann Neuzillet; Mathieu Rouanne; George N Thalmann; Erik Veskimäe; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G van der Heijden Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christopher C Parker; Nicholas D James; Christopher D Brawley; Noel W Clarke; Alex P Hoyle; Adnan Ali; Alastair W S Ritchie; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William Cross; David P Dearnaley; Silke Gillessen; Clare Gilson; Robert J Jones; Ruth E Langley; Zafar I Malik; Malcolm D Mason; David Matheson; Robin Millman; J Martin Russell; George N Thalmann; Claire L Amos; Roberto Alonzi; Amit Bahl; Alison Birtle; Omar Din; Hassan Douis; Chinnamani Eswar; Joanna Gale; Melissa R Gannon; Sai Jonnada; Sara Khaksar; Jason F Lester; Joe M O'Sullivan; Omi A Parikh; Ian D Pedley; Delia M Pudney; Denise J Sheehan; Narayanan Nair Srihari; Anna T H Tran; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 79.321