Hutson T.E.,Baylor Sammons Cancer Center |
Hutson T.E.,Us Oncology Research |
Al-Shukri S.,Saint Petersburg State University |
Stus V.P.,Municipal Institution Dnipropetrovsk Regional Clinical Hospital Na Ii Mechnikov |
And 7 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2013
Background: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. Findings: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. Interpretation: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. Funding: Pfizer Inc. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: A randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial
Schwartzberg L.S.,The West Clinic |
Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology |
Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital |
And 5 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Methods: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. Findings: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: Two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials
Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital |
Urban L.,Matrahaza Healthcare Center and University Teaching Hospital |
Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology |
And 6 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. Findings: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
News Article | December 8, 2016
THE WOODLANDS, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--US Oncology Research held its 15th Annual Science Forum earlier this fall. The annual meeting for all US Oncology Research affiliated investigators was held in Dallas and highlighted the importance of clinical trials as a treatment option for cancer patients. “A clinical trial saved my life,” said Rhonda Jenkins, breast cancer survivor, clinical trial participant and patient of Texas Oncology, an affiliate of US Oncology Research. Jenkins shared her story with the hundreds of clinical attendees, including investigators and research coordinators. “The best advice I can give to patients is to not turn down a clinical trial if one is available. I received a terminal diagnosis eleven years ago. Because of a trial, I have my life back. I no longer consider myself as having a terminal disease. Plus, participating in a trial allowed me to play a part in hopefully helping future patients fight this disease,” added Jenkins. The Annual Science Forum allows research investigators to discuss and exchange thoughts on the latest scientific approaches and novel treatment strategies. Topics of discussion included: immunotherapy; the oncology care model; early phase trials; proton therapy; genomics; precision medicine; and much more. "This Forum represents an important form of education for all of us in the cutting-edge, ongoing work in basic and clinical research against cancer,” said Daniel Von Hoff, MD, FACP, chief scientific officer, US Oncology Research. “It helps our team craft strategies for the best way to help our patients.” One strategy used by US Oncology Research is its Selected Trials for Accelerated Rollout, or STAR, method. This program quickly opens clinical trials for difficult-to-find patients. When a potential STAR trial patient has been identified, the practice is trained and the study is opened within a two-week timeframe at the location where the patient is expected to be seen. Ultimately, STAR provides the latest in clinical research to the practice where the patient has been identified. “We are truly delivering tomorrow’s treatments today,” said Michael Seiden, MD, chief medical officer, The US Oncology Network and McKesson Specialty Health. “The Annual Science Forum brings together the leadership of US Oncology Research as we both celebrate our accomplishments and look forward to building an even stronger culture of research across our national network of affiliated physicians and research staff.” During the Forum, investigators convened to hear from world renowned speakers on topics and trends in oncology research. The purpose is to continue to be at the cutting edge of research and provide patients in the community setting access to the latest treatments. Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of Medical Oncology and associate director for Translational Research at Yale Cancer Center, was a keynote speaker at the Forum and spoke about novel therapies for lung cancer, including targeted and immuno-therapies. “Collaborating with research investigators across the country on the most recent trends in oncology treatment is extremely important,” said Dr. Herbst. “It is our responsibility as researchers and providers to constantly be in search for the latest and most effective treatment options to improve efficacy and decrease toxicity. It was an honor to be among such passionate and dedicated clinicians and researchers.” “This year's Annual Science Forum really put a charge into our passion for clinical research,” said David Cosgrove, MD, oncologist with Compass Oncology and associate chair of the US Oncology Research Gastrointestinal (GI) Committee. “We heard from impressive speakers involved in cutting-edge science, highlighted recent successes in our field and got great perspective regarding patient communication. The Forum highlighted some of the challenges we will face in clinical research in a community oncology setting in the years ahead, and also provided a robust framework for future success building upon the US Oncology Research model that leads the way in these endeavors. I am excited to be part of this group moving forward.” Supported by McKesson Specialty Health and The US Oncology Network, US Oncology Research draws from a network of experienced investigators and dedicated clinical staff who specialize in oncology clinical trials. US Oncology Research serves approximately 60 research sites and nearly 160 locations managing about 300 active trials at any given time. Physicians in the research network have enrolled more than 64,000 patients in more than 1,500 trials since inception in 1992 and have played a role in more than 60 FDA-approved cancer therapies, nearly one-third of all cancer therapies approved by the FDA to date. For more information about US Oncology Research visit https://www.usoncology.com/oncologists/us-oncology-research. To find clinical trials available through US Oncology Research visit http://trialfinder.usoncology.com.
O'Brien S.,University of Houston |
Furman R.R.,New York Medical College |
Coutre S.E.,Stanford University |
Sharman J.P.,Willamette Valley Cancer Institute And Research Center Us Oncology Research |
And 18 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2014
Background: Chemoimmunotherapy has led to improved numbers of patients achieving disease response, and longer overall survival in young patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; however, its application in elderly patients has been restricted by substantial myelosuppression and infection. We aimed to assess safety and activity of ibrutinib, an orally administered covalent inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), in treatment-naive patients aged 65 years and older with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Methods: In our open-label phase 1b/2 trial, we enrolled previously untreated patients at clinical sites in the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 65 years, and had symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma requiring therapy. Patients received 28 day cycles of once-daily ibrutinib 420 mg or ibrutinib 840 mg. The 840 mg dose was discontinued after enrolment had begun because comparable activity of the doses has been shown. The primary endpoint was the safety of the dose-fixed regimen in terms of frequency and severity of adverse events for all patients who received treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01105247. Findings: Between May 20, 2010, and Dec 18, 2012, we enrolled 29 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and two patients with small lymphocytic lymphoma. Median age was 71 years (range 65-84), and 23 (74%) patients were at least 70 years old. Toxicity was mainly of mild-to-moderate severity (grade 1-2). 21 (68%) patients had diarrhoea (grade 1 in 14 [45%] patients, grade 2 in three [10%] patients, and grade 3 in four [13%] patients). 15 (48%) patients developed nausea (grade 1 in 12 [39%] patients and grade 2 in three [10%] patients). Ten (32%) patients developed fatigue (grade 1 in five [16%] patients, grade 2 in four [13%] patients, and grade 3 in one [3%] patient). Three (10%) patients developed grade 3 infections, although no grade 4 or 5 infections occurred. One patient developed grade 3 neutropenia, and one developed grade 4 thrombocytopenia. After a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 18·4-23·2), 22 (71%) of 31 patients achieved an objective response (95% CI 52·0-85·8); four patients (13%) had a complete response, one patient (3%) had a nodular partial response, and 17 (55%) patients had a partial response. Interpretation: The safety and activity of ibrutinib in elderly, previously untreated patients with symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, or small lymphocytic lymphoma is encouraging, and merits further investigation in phase 3 trials. Funding: Pharmacyclics, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, D Warren Brown Foundation, Mr and Mrs Michael Thomas, Harry Mangurian Foundation, P50 CA140158 to Prof J C Byrd MD. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Galsky M.D.,Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada |
Galsky M.D.,Us Oncology Research |
Vogelzang N.J.,Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada |
Vogelzang N.J.,Us Oncology Research
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2010
Background: Once castration resistance is documented and secondary hormone therapy is ineffective, standard treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is docetaxel, with bisphosphonates and radiopharmaceuticals administered to treat bone symptoms. To improve outcomes, numerous studies have evaluated docetaxel in combination with other agents. Here, results for docetaxel-based combination therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are reviewed. Materials and methods: Relevant studies were identified in databases of published literature, clinical trials, and conference abstracts using the search terms docetaxel and prostate, with additional searches carried out for identified agents. Results: Numerous classes of agents have been combined with docetaxel in phase II studies in CRPC, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, bone-targeted agents, BCL-2 inhibitors, chemotherapies, immunologic agents, and vitamin D analogs. In several cases, promising rates of prostate-specific antigen response, tumor response, and survival have been reported. However, some combinations have caused increased toxicity. Phase III trials with docetaxel plus GVAX or DN-101 were terminated because of lower survival; phase III trials with docetaxel plus bevacizumab, aflibercept, dasatinib, zibotentan, atrasentan, or lenalidomide are ongoing. Conclusions: Docetaxel-based doublet therapy remains an active investigational strategy in CRPC. Further phase III data are awaited to determine whether survival can be extended compared with docetaxel alone. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Sharman J.,Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center |
Hawkins M.,Gilead Sciences Inc. |
Kolibaba K.,Us Oncology Research |
Boxer M.,Arizona Oncology |
And 5 more authors.
Blood | Year: 2015
Small-molecule inhibitors of kinases involved in B-cell receptor signaling are an important advance in managing lymphoid malignancies. Entospletinib (GS-9973) is an oral, selective inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase. This multicenter, phase 2 study enrolled subjects with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL; n = 41) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 145). Participants received 800 mg entospletinib twice daily. We report efficacy outcomes in the CLL cohort (n = 41) and safety outcomes in all cohorts (N = 186). The primary end point was a progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks in subjects with CLL. The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 70.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.3%-82.7%); median PFS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 7.7 months to not reached). The objective response rate was 61.0% (95% CI, 44.5%-75.8%), including 3 subjects (7.3%)who achieved nodal response with persistent lymphocytosis. Fifty-four subjects (29.0%) had serious adverse events (SAEs). The most common treatment-emergent SAEs included dyspnea, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, and pyrexia. Common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities included neutropenia (14.5%) and reversible alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations (13.4%). Entospletinib demonstrates clinical activity in subjects with relapsed or refractory CLL with acceptable toxicity. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01799889. © 2015 by The American Society of Hematology.
Agarwal N.,University of Utah |
Padmanabh S.,University of Utah |
Vogelzang N.J.,Us Oncology Research
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer | Year: 2012
Prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality in men in the Western world. Use of traditional and newer therapeutic regimens is constrained in terms of tolerance, efficacy, and cross-resistance. There is a need for newer therapies without overlapping mechanisms of action and toxicities to improve the outcome. Advances in the field of immunology and cancer biology have led to an improved understanding of the interactions between the immune system and tumors, propelling the field of cancer vaccines to the forefront of clinical investigation. Recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of sipuleucel-T, an autologous dendritic cell-based vaccine for the treatment of castration refractory prostate cancer, represents a significant advancement in the field of cancer vaccines. However, the overall survival benefits with sipuleucel-T are modest at best, and the field of cancer vaccine therapy is in a continuous state of evolution and expansion. Further improvements are expected to result from the selection of more appropriate tumor antigens, which circumvent immune tolerance, and from the development of more effective immunization strategies aimed at inducing an effective cytotoxic T-cell response. This review summarizes recent developments in the field of immunotherapy in prostate cancer with a focus on dendritic cell vaccines, virus-based vaccines, DNA-based vaccines, cell-based vaccines, peptide-based vaccine and therapies blocking immune checkpoints to break peripheral immune tolerance. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Pal S.K.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center |
Nelson R.A.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center |
Vogelzang N.,Us Oncology Research
PLoS ONE | Year: 2013
Background:Recent phase III studies of targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have generated median survival estimates that far exceed those observed during the cytokine era. However, substantial population-based data does not exist to confirm this trend. We sought to determine whether survival has improved for patients with mRCC diagnosed in the era of targeted therapies, as compared to the era of immunotherapy.Methods:The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry was used to identify patients aged 18 and older diagnosed stage IV RCC between 1992 and 2009. Patients had documented clear cell, papillary or chromophobe histology. The Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients diagnosed from 1992-2004 (i.e., the cytokine era) and 2005-2009 (i.e., the targeted therapy era). Univariate and multivariate analyses of relevant clinicopathologic characteristics were also performed.Results:Of 5,176 patients identified using the above characteristics, 2,392 patients were diagnosed from 1992-2004 and 2,784 from 2005-2009. Median DSS was improved in those patients diagnosed from 2005-2009 (16 months vs 13 months; P<0.0001). A similar temporal trend towards improving survival was noted in patients with clear cell (P = 0.0006), but not in patients with non-clear cell disease (P = 0.32). Notable findings on multivariate analysis include an association between shorter DSS and the following characteristics: (1) diagnosis from 1992-2004, (2) advanced age (80+), and (3) absence of cytoreductive nephrectomy.Conclusions:These data reflect progress in the management of mRCC, specifically in the era of targeted therapies. Notably, it was inferred that certain treatment strategies were employed during pre-specified time periods, representing a major caveat of the current analysis. Further studies related to the influence of age and race/ethnicity are warranted, as are studies exploring the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and novel treatments for non-clear cell disease. © 2013 Pal et al.
Yuh B.E.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center |
Ruel N.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center |
Wilson T.G.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center |
Vogelzang N.,Us Oncology Research |
Pal S.K.,City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center
Journal of Urology | Year: 2013
Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to confer a survival advantage in phase III studies. Although cisplatin and gemcitabine are often used in this setting, a comprehensive evaluation of this regimen is lacking. In this review we summarize the efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer based on currently published studies. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in April 2012 searching MEDLINE® databases. Articles were selected if they included patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer, evaluated the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine as neoadjuvant treatment, and reported pathological data after cystectomy. Cisplatin and gemcitabine dosing regimens and clinical data were further summarized using weighted averages. Results: Seven studies encompassing 164 patients were published between 2007 and 2012. The majority of patients (79%) received cisplatin and gemcitabine on a 21-day cycle. A weighted average of 19.2 lymph nodes was obtained at cystectomy, and 29.7% of patients were found to have pN1 disease. Pathological down staging to pT0 and less than pT2 occurred in 42 (25.6%) and 67 (46.5%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine yield appreciable pathological response rates in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. Since pathological response has been implicated as a potential surrogate for survival in muscle invasive bladder cancer, these data suggest that neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine may warrant further prospective assessment. © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.