Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

BACKGROUND: Perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy has shown benefit in patients with high-risk localized urothelial bladder cancer, but it is not widely used. Renal impairment may be a major factor limiting its use. The current study was designed to determine the proportion of patients ineligible to receive adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy based on inadequate renal function alone. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer of the bladder with evidence of extravesical disease (> or =pT3 or any N+) were identified. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Serum creatinine immediately before and nadir serum creatinine after cystectomy were used to calculate creatinine clearance (CrCl) or glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using the Cockroft-Gault (CG), Jelliffe, and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study formulas. A cutoff of CrCl <60 mL/min or GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was used to determine ineligibility for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The proportion of patients ineligible by each formula was compared by univariate logistic regression. Univariate linear regression was performed to determine the effect of age on CrCl or GFR. RESULTS.: Most patients were pT3 or greater; 39% were lymph node-positive. The overall proportion of patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy was 28% by the CG formula, 52% by Jelliffe, and 24% by MDRD. Concordance between formulas was low. With all formulas the probability of ineligibility increased with age: by the CG equation, >40% of patients age >70 years were ineligible. CONCLUSIONS.: The widespread use of cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy in patients with high-risk localized bladder cancer may be significantly limited by the high prevalence of baseline renal insufficiency in this population. This finding is most striking in the elderly. Better selection of patients who may safely receive cisplatin and more effective regimens devoid of cisplatin are required to optimize outcomes in this group of patients.     

Gemcitabine and docetaxel as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma: a phase II study

The purpose of the study was to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel in untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Patients with previously untreated, locally advanced/recurrent or metastatic urothelial carcinoma stage-IV disease were eligible. Patients with Performance status: PS ECOG >3 or age >75 years or creatinine clearance <50 ml min(-1) were excluded. Study treatment consisted of docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) (day 8) and gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) (days 1+8), every 21 days for a total of six to nine cycles. A total of 31 patients with urothelial bladder cancer, 25 men and six women, aged 42-74 (median 64) years were enrolled. The majority of patients had a good PS (51.6%; PS 0). In all, 15 (48.3%) patients had locally advanced or recurrent disease only and 16 (54.8%) presented with distant metastatic spread, with multiple site involvement in 22.5%. Toxicity was primarily haematologic, and the most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were anaemia 11 (6.7%) thrombocytopenia eight (4.9%), and neutropenia 45 (27.6%), with 10 (6.1%) episodes of febrile neutropenia. No toxic deaths occurred. A number of patients had some cardiovascular morbidity (38.7%). Nonhaematological toxicities except alopecia (29 patients) were mild. Overall response rate was 51.6%, including four complete responses (12.9%) and 12 partial responses (38.7%), while a further five patients had disease stabilisation (s.d. 16.1%). The median time to progression was 8 months (95% CI 5.1-9.2 months) and the median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI 11.2-18.5 months), with 1-year survival rate of 60%. In conclusion, this schedule of gemcitabine and docetaxel is very active and well tolerated as a first-line treatment for advanced/relapsing or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Although its relative efficacy and tolerance as compared to classic MVAC should be assessed in a phase III setting, the favourable toxicity profile of this regimen may offer an interesting alternative, particularly in patients with compromised renal function or cardiovascular disease.     

Biweekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine for patients with advanced urothelial cancer ineligible for cisplatin-based regimen

BACKGROUND: To avoid cisplatin-related gastrointestinal, renal and other toxicity while maintaining efficacy in the palliative setting or second line chemotherapeutic regimen for cisplatin-resistant urothelial cancer, chemotherapeutic regimens have been investigated that do not include cisplatin. The current study was designed to evaluate efficacy, clinical feasibility and safety of gemcitabine and paclitaxel (GP) regimen in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who were ineligible for standard cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. METHODS: Gemcitabine 2500 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) were administered intravenously every 2 weeks for 23 patients (17 males and 6 females) with advanced urothelial cancer who were ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy; metastatic disease being resistant to cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen in 14, heavy toxicity in prior cisplatin-based chemotherapy in three, poor ECOG performance in two and impaired renal function in four. Average age was 67 (53-77). Performance status was 0 in 18 patients, 1 in three patients and 2 in two patients. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 30% (95% CI 15.6-50.8%). Of the 23 patients, no patient attained CR and 7 patients had PR. In the cisplatin-resistant group, the response rate was 14.2% (2/14; 95% CI 4.0-39.9%). In the remaining patients ineligible for cisplatin, the response rate was 55.5% (5/9; 95% CI 26.6-81.1%). The median duration of response was 4 months (range 3-8). The median duration of survival for all patients was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.6-15.5). Myelosuppression, predominantly neutropenia, was the most common serious toxicity and toxicity of Grade 3 or greater was observed in six patients (26%). Among non-hematological toxicity, neuralgia was the most commonly observed and occurred in nine patients (39%) although no patient had toxicity of Grade 3 or greater. Three patients had interstitial pneumonitis possibly attributed to gemcitabine. One patient developed severe bilateral disease after two cycles of the regimen, which was partially resolved with corticosteroid therapy. CONCLUSION: GP regimen is effective in some patients with cisplatin-resistant urothelial cancer and promising as second line chemotherapy. GP regimen is more effective and well tolerated as first line chemotherapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Toxicity is generally mild but care must be taken for patients with risk of interstitial pneumonitis. A further larger scale study is required to confirm the efficacy of the GP regimen.     

Gemcitabine plus epirubicin in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for platinum-based regimens

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine plus epirubicin in previously untreated patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were not eligible for cisplatin-based regimens. METHODS: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and at least one of the following characteristics were eligible: impaired renal function (creatinine clearance < 60 mL per minute), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) >or= 2, and age >or= 75 years. The treatment included epirubicin 70 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus on Day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients entered the study, and a total of 152 cycles were administered, with a median of 4 cycles per patient (range, 1-6 cycles per patient). The following Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities were reported (percent of cycles): neutropenia, 22.4%; anemia, 11.2%; and thrombocytopenia, 6.5%. No cardiac, renal, or hepatic toxicities were observed. Dose intensities of epirubicin and gemcitabine were 19.6 mg/m(2) per week (84%) and 532.2 mg/m(2) per week (80%), respectively. There were 2 complete responses (5.3%), 13 partial responses (34.2%), 11 patients with stable disease (28.9%), and 12 patients with progressive disease (31.6%), for an overall response rate of 39.5% (95% confidence interval, 25.1-55.1). The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 4.8 months and 8.0 months, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 38%, and the median PFS and OS were 6.4 months and 16.4 months, respectively, in patients with PS 0-1. Thirty patients were symptomatic: Seventeen patients (56.7%) achieved a complete response, and 5 patients (16.7%) achieved a partial symptomatic response. CONCLUSIONS: At the doses given in this study, gemcitabine and epirubicin had a good tolerability profile with interesting activity in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were not fit for cisplatin-based regimens.     

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin, an active regimen in advanced urothelial cancer: a phase II trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine (2', 2'-difluorodeoxycytidine) plus cisplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced transitional-cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with measurable advanced transitional-cell carcinoma who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were scheduled to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 and cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) over 1 hour on day 2 of a 28-day cycle. Prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced disease was allowed if this was completed more than 1 year before study entry. RESULTS: There were six complete responses and 10 partial responses in 28 assessable patients, for an overall response rate of 16 of 28 (57%). The response rate on an intent-to-treat basis was 16 of 31 patients (52%). The median survival is 13.2 months, with 18 patients still alive at this time. Toxicity was primarily hematologic, with 12 of 31 patients (39%) having > or = grade 3 granulocytopenia and 17 of 31 (55%) having > or = grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Two patients had febrile neutropenia. All patients required a dose modification of gemcitabine at some point in their therapy; the primary reason was thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin is an active regimen for the treatment of urothelial cancer.     

Combination paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine is an active treatment for advanced urothelial cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of the drug combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients eligible included those with advanced urothelial malignancy of any histology, no previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, Southwest Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, serum creatinine levels of 2 mg/dL or less, and adequate bone marrow and hepatic function. Treatment consisted of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, carboplatin (target area under the curve = 5) on day 1, and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (44 men and five women) were enrolled; the patients' median age was 63 years, and their median creatinine clearance was 78 mL/min (range, 26 to 165 mL/min). Forty-three patients had transitional cell carcinoma, and six had squamous cell carcinoma or mixed histology. Ten patients had metastases to lymph nodes only, six had locally advanced disease, four had locally recurrent disease, 24 patients had visceral metastases, and five had soft tissue metastases. Twenty-one patients had disease in one site, 16 in two sites, and 12 in three sites. A total of 272 cycles were administered (median, six cycles; range, 1 to 15 cycles). Major toxicities were grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in 17 and 19 patients, respectively; grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 15 and six patients, respectively; grade 3 and 4 anemia in 10 and two patients, respectively; grade 3 neuropathy in four patients; and diarrhea in two patients. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 1.4%; no patients died of drug toxicity. Forty-seven of the 49 patients were assessable for response. Fifteen (32%) patients experienced a complete response, and 17 (36%) patients experienced a partial response (32 of 47 patients, 68%; 95% confidence interval, 56.27 to 82.86). Responses were seen in all sites, including 15 (68%) of 22 patients with visceral metastases. The median survival was 14.7 months, with a 1-year survival of 59%. CONCLUSION: Combination paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine is active; an encouraging number of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with this regimen experienced complete remission.     

Cisplatin and gemcitabine administered every two weeks in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and impaired renal function

BackgroundCisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, standard dose schedule of cisplatin cannot be used in patients with impaired renal function. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and a split dose administration of cisplatin in patients with renal dysfunction.Patients and methodsPatients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with creatinine clearance between 35 and 59 ml/min received gemcitabine 2500 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² on day 1 and day 15 for an every 28 day schedule.ResultsBetween March 2004 and November 2009, 38 patients were treated. Median creatinine clearance was 49 ml/min. Median number of cycles per patient was 3 (1–7). There were 15 partial responses (39%) and 12 patients had stable disease (31%). Median progression free survival and overall survival were 3.5 and 8.5 months (mo), respectively.Grade 3–4 haematological toxicities were: neutropenia 9%, anaemia 6% and thrombocytopenia 16%. No patient developed renal toxicity.ConclusionsBiweekly gemcitabine and cisplatin is an active and feasible regimen in this subset of patients and could be an option for unfit patients. However, results seem not to be superior to those obtained with carboplatin based regimens in this population of patients.     

Single agent paclitaxel as a first-line therapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma: its efficacy and safety in patients even with pretreatment renal insufficiency

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of the treatment for advanced urothelial cancer, but patients with renal insufficiency before therapy are usually contraindicated to receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Paclitaxel is one of the most promising agents against advanced urothelial carcinoma in recent trials and it can be easily tolerated even in patients with compromised renal function. We conducted a study in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel as a first-line therapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma patients. METHODS: Thirteen advanced chemo-naive urothelial carcinoma patients with a median age of 71 years were studied, seven of them demonstrating renal insufficiency (pretreatment serum creatinine > or = 1.5 mg/dl). All 13 patients received a minimum of two cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, delivered by intravenous infusion for 3 h every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Four of the 13 patients responded to treatment, a response rate of 30.8%, with two of these achieving complete remission and two showing partial responses. The median overall survival period of all 13 patients was nine months (95% Cl: 6.51-11.49) and our study revealed a statistical tendency in the difference of median overall survival time between responders and non-responders (13 months versus 7.5 months, log-rank p = 0.038), although the number of cases was limited. The differences in response rate and median overall survival time, comparing patients with renal insufficiency and those with normal renal function, were not significant. Treatment-related toxicity was mild, with only two (15.4%) patients suffering from grade 3-4 leukopenia. No treatment-related mortality was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent paclitaxel can be used as a first-line therapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma patients, and is especially suitable for those with pretreatment renal insufficiency, since the antitumor activity is significant while toxicity is well tolerated.     

Phase II multicentre study of docetaxel plus cisplatin in patients with advanced urothelial cancer

A multicentre phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the activity and toxicity of docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with urothelial cancer. Thirty-eight patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the bladder, renal pelvis or ureter received the combination of docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) and cisplatin 75 mg m(-2) on day 1 and repeated every 21 days, to a maximum of six cycles. The median delivered dose-intensity was 98% (range 79-102%) of the planned dose for both drugs. There were seven complete responses and 15 partial responses, for and overall response rate of 58% (95% CI, 41-74%). Responses were even seen in three patients with hepatic metastases. The median time to progression was 6.9 months, and the median overall survival was 10.4 months. Two patients who achieved CR status remain free of disease at 4 and 3 years respectively. Grade 3-4 granulocytopenia occurred in 27 patients, resulting in five episodes of febrile neutropenia. There was one toxic death in a patient with grade 4 granulocytopenia who developed acute abdomen. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was rare (one patient). Other grade 3-4 toxicities observed were anaemia (three patients), vomiting (five patients), diarrhoea (four patients), peripheral neuropathy (two patients) and non-neutropenic infections (seven patients). Docetaxel plus cisplatin is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for the treatment of advanced urothelial cancer, and warrants further investigation.     

Phase II study of paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced carcinoma of the urothelium and renal dysfunction (E2896): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy options for the patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and renal dysfunction are limited. The authors performed a Phase II trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced carcinoma of the urothelium and renal dysfunction. METHODS: Forty-two patients were accrued; 37 eligible patients were treated. Patients received paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over three hours followed by carboplatin targeted area under the concentration-time curve = 6 mg/mL. minute every three weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: The median number of cycles received was four (range, one to six). The objective response rate was 24.3% (95% confidence interval, 11.9-41.7%). The median progression free survival was 3 months and the median overall survival was 7.1 months. The number of poor prognostic risk factors (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 1 or lung, liver, or bone metastases) significantly predicted for survival. The most common > or = 1 Grade 3 toxicities included granulocytopenia (60%) and neurotoxicity (35%). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel/carboplatin is a chemotherapy option for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and renal dysfunction. Future trials in chemotherapy development for this patient population are warranted.     

Impact of the CKD-EPI equation for estimating renal function on eligibility for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial cancer

Background

Although a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of <60 mL/min, as calculated by the Cockroft-Gault (CG) equation, is a commonly used threshold for “cisplatin-ineligibility,” the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation has recently emerged as a more accurate method of estimating renal function. We sought to determine the impact of using the CKD-EPI equation for estimating renal function on cisplatin eligibility.

Methods

All patients pathologically diagnosed with muscle invasive and/or metastatic bladder urothelial carcinoma (T2-4, N or M positive) at Mount Sinai Medical Center between January 1, 2000, and January 27, 2011, were identified. For each patient, CrCl was estimated by using the CG equation and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated by using the CKD-EPI equation. The patients were considered cisplatin-ineligible if CrCl <60 mL/min or if GFR was <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Results

A total of 116 patients were included. The median CrCl estimated by CG was 58.93 mL/min, whereas the median GFR estimated by CKD-EPI was 64.67 mL/min per 1.73 m². When using the CG formula, 53% of our cohort was cisplatin ineligible, whereas 46% of the cohort was ineligible when using the CKD-EPI formula. The probability of deeming a patient ineligible when using the CG formula was 17% higher than the probability of deeming a patient ineligible when using the CKD-EPI formula: PR 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.34); P = .0203.

Conclusion

In our retrospective study, the CKD-EPI formula was less likely to deem a patient ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy compared with the CG formula. This finding was hypothesis generating, and prospective evaluation is necessary to determine the clinical relevance of using this more accurate method of renal function assessment in chemotherapy decision making.     

Impact of contemporary patterns of chemotherapy utilization on survival in patients with advanced cancer of the urinary tract: a Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC)

BackgroundCisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is the standard treatment of advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC), but 50% of patients are ineligible for cisplatin according to recently published criteria. We used a multinational database to study patterns of chemotherapy utilization in patients with aUTC and determine their impact on survival.Patients and methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with: UTC (bladder, renal pelvis, ureter or urethra); advanced disease (stages T4b and/or N+ and/or M+); urothelial, squamous or adenocarcinoma histology. Primary objective was overall survival (OS). Eligibility-for-cisplatin was defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, creatinine clearance ≥60 ml/min, no hearing loss, no neuropathy and no heart failure. Cox regression multivariate analyses were used to establish independent associations of cisplatin versus noncisplatin-based chemotherapy on OS.ResultsAbout 1794 patients treated between 2000 and 2013 at 29 centers were analyzed. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. About 1333 patients (74%) received first-line chemotherapy: the use of first-line chemotherapy was associated with longer OS: [hazard ratio (HR): 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.67–2.20]. Type of first-line chemotherapy received was: cisplatin-based 669 (50%), carboplatin-based 399 (30%) and other 265 (20%). Cisplatin use was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.35–1.77). This benefit was independent of baseline characteristics or comorbidities but was associated with eligibility-for-cisplatin: eligible patients treated with cisplatin lived longer than those who were not (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.36–2.21), while such benefit was not observed among ineligible patients. About 26% of patients who did not receive cisplatin were eligible for this agent. Median OS of ineligible patients was poor irrespective of the chemotherapy used.ConclusionsThe importance of applying published criteria of eligibility-for-cisplatin was confirmed in a multinational, real-world setting in aUTC. The reasons for deviations from these criteria set targets to improve adherence. Effective therapies for cisplatin-ineligible patients are needed.     

Paclitaxel and gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract: a phase II trial of the Minnie pearl cancer research network.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with advanced transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients with advanced unresectable urothelial carcinoma entered this multi-centered, community-based, phase II trial between May 1997 and December 1999. All patients were treated with paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) by 1-hour intravenous (IV) infusion on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) IV on days 1, 8, and 15; courses were repeated every 21 days. Patients who had objective response or stable disease continued treatment for six courses. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 54 patients (54%; 95% confidence interval, 40% to 67%) had major responses to treatment, including 7% complete responses. With a median follow-up of 24 months, 16 patients (30%) remain alive and nine (17%) are progression-free. The median survival for the entire group was 14.4 months; 1- and 2-year actuarial survival rates were 57% and 25%, respectively. Seven (47%) of 15 patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy responded to paclitaxel/gemcitabine. Grade 3/4 toxicity was primarily hematologic, including leukopenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (13%), and anemia (28%). Ten patients (19%) required hospitalization for neutropenia and fever, and one patient had treatment-related septic death. CONCLUSION: The combination of paclitaxel and gemcitabine is active and well tolerated in the first- or second-line treatment of patients with advanced transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. Response rate and duration compare favorably with those produced by other active, first-line regimens. This regimen should be further evaluated in phase II and III studies, as well as in patients with compromised renal function.     

Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: Patients with metastatic or locally unresectable transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium who had received either no or one previous systemic chemotherapy regimen were eligible. All patients received chemotherapy with intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) on Day 1, intravenous carboplatin at an area under the serum concentration-time curve of 5.0 on Day 1, and intravenous gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 8. Treatment courses were repeated every 21 days. Patients were evaluated for response after they completed two treatment courses; patients who achieved an objective response and stable disease continued treatment for a total of six courses or until tumor progression. RESULTS: Sixty patients were treated between January 2000 and September 2003. Thirty-five patients (58%) had > or = 1 visceral sites of metastases, and only 4 patients (7%) had received any previous systemic chemotherapy. Twenty-six patients (43%) had achieved objective responses to treatment (12% complete responses). The median actuarial survival was 11 months, and the actuarial 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 46% and 27%, respectively. Myelosuppression was the most frequent toxicity, and Grade 3-4 neutropenia (using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) occurred in 72% of patients (46% of courses). Ten patients were hospitalized for the treatment of neutropenia and fever, and 1 patient died of treatment-related causes. Nonhematologic toxicities were relatively uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine was an active and tolerable regimen for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, the regimen was more toxic and showed no obvious incremental increase in efficacy compared retrospectively with various two-drug regimens.     

Chemotherapy with cisplatin, epirubicin and docetaxel in transitional cell urothelial cancer. Phase II trial

Cisplatin (CDDP), epirubicin (EPI) and docetaxel have single agent activity against urothelial transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial TCC. Patients with urothelial TCC who had no prior chemotherapy (prior adjuvant chemotherapy > 6 months allowed) were eligible for entry the study. Eligibility criteria were performance status 0-3, granulocyte count (AGC) > or = 1.5 (10(9)/l), platelet count > or = 100 (10(9)/l), clearance creatine > or = 60 ml/min and total bilirubin level < or = 1.5 mg/dl. Treatment consisted of EPI 40 mg/m2 intravenous push, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 in 1 h infusion with premedication and CDDP 75 mg/m2 with pre- and posthydration. Treatment was repeated every 21 days. Antiemetics with dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonists were used routinely. Prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors were not used. Patients were evaluated for toxicity weekly and assessed for response every two cycles of treatment. 32 patients were entered into the study and 30 patients (7 with locally advanced and 23 with metastatic disease) were assessable for response. There were 9 (30.0%) complete responses (2, 28.6% in locally advanced and 7, 30.4% in metastatic disease) and 11 (36.7%) partial responses (3, 42.9% in locally advanced and 8, 34.8% in metastatic disease) with an overall response rate (RR) of 66.7% (71.5% in locally advanced, 65.2% in metastatic disease). Overall median survival was 14.5 months (15 months for locally advanced, 12.5 months for metastatic disease). The median duration of response in patients with metastatic disease was 8.5 months. 16 (53.3%) patients required one dose reduction and 5 (16.7%) patients required two dose reductions for a nadir AGC < or = 500/mm3. Four episodes of febrile neutropenia and sepsis occurred. No patient had a dose reduction or treatment delay for any other grade 3/4 toxicity. There were no treatment delays due to myelotoxicity. Alopecia was universal. Non-haematological toxicity including mucositis, fluid retention, allergy, cutaneous toxicity, diarrhoea and neurotoxicity were mild and infrequent. The combination of EPI, docetaxel and CDDP is an active regimen for urothelial TCC. The response rate and toxicity were comparable with the M-VAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, cisplastin) regimen. Phase III trials comparing this regimen with M-VAC are warranted.     

The outcome of elderly patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based combination chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with advanced urothelial cancer are elderly, but data regarding this specific age group are limited. We compared the tolerability and efficacy of first-line platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin)-based chemotherapy in elderly patients (> or =70 years) with those in younger patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 381 patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma received CIMV (cisplatin, ifosphamide, methotrexate, vinblastine) (n=32), MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) (n=105), DC (docetaxel, cisplatin) (n=174), CaG (carboplatin, gemcitabine) (n=64) or other regimes (n=6) and were included in this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were > or =70 years. Elderly patients experienced more frequent neutropenia grade 3/4 (55% versus 37%, P=0.087) and renal toxicity (28% versus 10%, P=0.033) among patients treated with CIMV/MVAC, and neutropenic infections (4% versus 0%, P=0.019) among patients treated with DC. Median survival did not differ significantly between elderly and younger patients (9.3 versus 10.5 months, P=0.16). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) and haemoglobin were independently associated with prognosis. Patients with PS <2 and haemoglobin > or =10 g/dl had a median survival of 14 months as opposed to 5 months for patients with PS > or =2 or haemoglobin <10 g/dl (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with advanced urothelial cancer tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy well and derive the same benefit as their younger counterparts.     

Docetaxel and cisplatin with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus MVAC with G-CSF in advanced urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study from the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: The combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) represents the standard regimen for inoperable or metastatic urothelial cancer, but its toxicity is significant. We previously reported a 52% response rate (RR) using a docetaxel and cisplatin (DC) combination. The toxicity of this regimen compared favorably with that reported for MVAC. We thus designed a randomized phase III trial to compare DC with MVAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with inoperable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma; adequate bone marrow, renal, liver, and cardiac function; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2 were randomly assigned to receive MVAC at standard doses or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. RESULT: Two hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned (MVAC, 109 patients; DC, 111 patients). Treatment with MVAC resulted in superior RR (54.2% v 37.4%; P =.017), median time to progression (TTP; 9.4 v 6.1 months; P =.003) and median survival (14.2 v 9.3 months; P =.026). After adjusting for prognostic factors, difference in TTP remained significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P =.005), whereas survival difference was nonsignificant at the 5% level (HR, 1.31; P =.089). MVAC caused more frequent grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (35.4% v 19.2%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (5.7% v 0.9%; P =.046), and neutropenic sepsis (11.6% v 3.8%; P =.001). Toxicity of MVAC was considerably lower than that previously reported for MVAC administered without G-CSF. CONCLUSION: MVAC is more effective than DC in advanced urothelial cancer. G-CSF-supported MVAC is well tolerated and could be used instead of classic MVAC as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial carcinoma.     

Phase 2 trial of pemetrexed disodium and gemcitabine in advanced urothelial cancer (E4802): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify active new regimens in patients with advanced urothelial cancer. Pemetrexed and gemcitabine are active agents in advanced urothelial cancer. A phase 2 trial of the combination of these 2 agents was performed in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who were previously untreated for metastatic disease. METHODS: Forty-six patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma received pemetrexed disodium 500 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously on Day 1, with gemcitabine repeated on Day 8. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. RESULTS: Two patients attained a complete response, and 12 patients attained a partial response for an overall response rate of 31.8% (90% confidence interval, 20.4%-45.2%). The median time to disease progression was 5.8 months, and the median overall survival was 13.4 months. Thirty-three patients (75%) experienced grade>or=3 neutropenia, and 5 patients (11%) had febrile neutropenia. There were 2 therapy-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine had moderate antitumor activity in previously untreated patients with advanced urothelial cancer at the expense of significant myelosuppression.     

Platinum-free combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based regimens have improved response rates and survival in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelial tract. However, the toxicities of platinum-based chemotherapy are considerable. Regimens with reduced toxicity that are applicable to a broader group of TCC patients without sacrificing activity therefore are of interest. METHODS: Because gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and methotrexate have each been reported to possess single-agent activity in this disease, the authors evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of fixed doses of paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2) over 3 hours) and methotrexate (30 mg/m(2)) with escalating doses of gemcitabine (800-1000 mg/m(2)), all given on Days 1 and 8 every 21 days, in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic TCC. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. Two patients were ineligible and were excluded from analysis. Because no dose-limiting toxicity occurred in the first 4 patients who were given gemcitabine at a dose of 800 mg/m(2), the gemcitabine dose was escalated to 1000 mg/m(2) in the next 21 patients. Of the 21 patients assessable for response, 6 had achieved a complete response (CR) and 6 had achieved a partial response, for an overall response rate of 57%. An additional patient was converted to a CR surgically. The median overall and progression-free survival times were 18 months and 9.2 months, respectively. Toxicity was predominantly neutropenia: Grade 3 in 9 patients (39%) and Grade 4 in 4 patients (17%) (according to the Southwest Oncology Group Toxicity Criteria, version 12/1994). One patient died of septic shock associated with febrile neutropenia after three cycles. CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and methotrexate at this dose and schedule was found to possess activity in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TCC. Further studies of this regimen are warranted.     

Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan and FU-FOL combination and pharmacokinetic analysis in advanced colorectal cancer patients

This phase I-II trial was designed to assess the effect of irinotecan on oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics and to determine the MDT of both drugs when administered in combination. Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetic studies were performed on cycle 1 and 2 to assess the best sequence and detect any interaction between the two drugs. Thirty-four patients with advanced colorectal cancer were enrolled; 28 of them (82%) had liver involvement. The main toxicities were neutropenia and delayed diarrhea; 5 patients (14%) experienced febrile neutropenia. Dose-limiting toxicity was experienced at levels 1/2/3/4/5 by 4/10, 1/6, 3/6, 3/8, and 3/4 patients, respectively. Fifteen patients responded (2 CR; 13 PR) for an ORR of 44%. No pharmacokinetic interactions between irinotecan and oxaliplatin were detected. The recommended dose for future phase II trials is oxaliplatin 85 mg/m and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1 combined with 5FU/leucovorin according to the de Gramont regimen at days 2 and 3. Twenty-nine percent of patients underwent secondary hepatectomy with curative intent, and two of them are long-term disease-free survivors. It would appear that the dose and schedule defined by this trial could be proposed as front-line therapy for advanced colorectal carcinoma to establish rapid disease control and to permit patients to proceed to surgery.