A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Leow, Jeffrey J.Martin-Doyle, William
Fay, Andre P.
Choueiri, Toni K.
Chang, Steven L.
Bellmunt, Joaquim
Student Authors
William Martin-DoyleFaculty Advisor
Joaquim Bellmunt (Dana Farber)Document Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2014-09-01Keywords
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarboplatin
Carcinoma
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
Cisplatin
Disease-Free Survival
Humans
Kidney Neoplasms
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Paclitaxel
Survival Rate
Ureteral Neoplasms
Urothelium
Adjuvant
Chemotherapy
Kidney neoplasms
Neoadjuvant
Nephroureterectomy
Renal pelvic tumors
Upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Ureteral neoplasms
Urothelial carcinoma
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Urology
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
CONTEXT: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) remains poorly defined for the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), although some studies suggest a benefit. OBJECTIVE: To update the current evidence on the role of NC and AC for UTUC patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched for all studies investigating NC or AC for UTUC in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings prior to February 2014. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: No randomized trials investigated the role of AC for UTUC. There was one prospective study (n=36) investigating adjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel and nine retrospective studies, with a total of 482 patients receiving cisplatin-based or non-cisplatin-based AC after nephroureterectomy (NU) and 1300 patients receiving NU alone. Across three cisplatin-based studies, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.89; p=0.023) compared with those who received surgery alone. For disease-free survival (DFS), the pooled HR across two studies was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.24-0.99; p=0.048). Benefit was not seen for non-cisplatin-based regimens. For NC, two phase 2 trials demonstrated favorable pathologic downstaging rates, with 3-yr OS and disease-specific survival (DSS) < /= 93%. Across two retrospective studies investigating NC, there was a DSS benefit, with a pooled HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22-0.76; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be an OS and DFS benefit for cisplatin-based AC in UTUC. This evidence is limited by the retrospective nature of studies and their relatively small sample size. NC appears to be promising, but more trials are needed to confirm its utility. PATIENT SUMMARY: After a comprehensive search of studies examining the role of chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial cancer, the pooled evidence shows that cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was beneficial for prolonging survival.Source
Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):529-41. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 Mar 16. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.003Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/49274PubMed ID
24680361Notes
William Martin-Doyle participated in this study as a medical student as part of the Senior Scholars research program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.003
Scopus Count
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: which is best for predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, and does it vary by the outcome being measured? Results from Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital databaseMithal, Prabhakar; Howard, Lauren E.; Aronson, William J.; Kane, Christopher J.; Cooperberg, Matthew R.; Terris, Martha K.; Amling, Christopher L.; Freedland, Stephen J. (2015-04-01)OBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and stage to predict prostate cancer outcomes beyond biochemical recurrence, specifically castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in radical prostatectomy patients. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of 2735 men in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database treated by radical prostatectomy from 1988 to 2011 with data available on pathological stage, grade and preoperative prostate-specific antigen. We used Cox hazards analyses to examine the predictive accuracy (c-index) of the preoperative prostate-specific antigen (log-transformed), path Gleason score ( < /= 7, 3 + 4, 4 + 3 and 8-10) and path stage grouping (pT2 negative margins; pT2 positive margins; pT3a negative margins; pT3a positive margins; pT3b; vs positive nodes) to predict biochemical recurrence, castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Median follow up was 8.7 years, during which, 937 (34%) had biochemical recurrence, 108 (4%) castration-resistant prostate cancer, 127 (5%) metastases and 68 (2%) prostate cancer-specific mortality. For the outcomes of biochemical recurrence, castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality, the c-indices were, respectively: prostate-specific antigen 0.65, 0.66, 0.64 and 0.69; Gleason score 0.66, 0.83, 0.76 and 0.85; and pathological stage group 0.69, 0.76, 0.72 and 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Gleason score can predict with very high accuracy prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Thus, Gleason score should be given more weight in nomograms to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality. Furthermore, men with a high Gleason score should be given special consideration for adjuvant treatment or referral to clinical trials because of a higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality.
-
Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature reviewFairchild, Alysa; Straube, William; Laurie, Fran; Followill, David S. (2013-10-01)Central review of radiation therapy (RT) delivery within multicenter clinical trials was initiated in the early 1970s in the United States. Early quality assurance publications often focused on metrics related to process, logistics, and timing. Our objective was to review the available evidence supporting correlation of RT quality with clinical outcomes within cooperative group trials. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify multicenter studies that described central subjective assessment of RT protocol compliance (quality). Data abstracted included method of central review, definition of deviations, and clinical outcomes. Seventeen multicenter studies (1980-2012) were identified, plus one Patterns of Care Study. Disease sites were hematologic, head and neck, lung, breast, and pancreas. Between 0 and 97% of treatment plans received an overall grade of acceptable. In 7 trials, failure rates were significantly higher after inadequate versus adequate RT. Five of 9 and 2 of 5 trials reported significantly worse overall and progression-free survival after poor-quality RT, respectively. One reported a significant correlation, and 2 reported nonsignificant trends toward increased toxicity with noncompliant RT. Although more data are required, protocol-compliant RT may decrease failure rates and increase overall survival and likely contributes to the ability of collected data to answer the central trial question.
-
The effect of radiation timing on patients with high-risk features of parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: an analysis of IRS-IV and D9803Spalding, Aaron C.; Hawkins, Douglas S.; Donaldson, Sarah S.; Anderson, James R.; Lyden, Elizabeth R.; Laurie, Fran; Wolden, Suzanne; Arndt, Carola; Michalski, Jeff M. (2013-11-01)PURPOSE: Radiation therapy remains an essential treatment for patients with parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (PMRMS), and early radiation therapy may improve local control for patients with intracranial extension (ICE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: To address the role of radiation therapy timing in PMRMS in the current era, we reviewed the outcome from 2 recent clinical trials for intermediate-risk RMS: Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-IV and Children's Oncology Group (COG) D9803. The PMRMS patients on IRS-IV with any high-risk features (cranial nerve palsy [CNP], cranial base bony erosion [CBBE], or ICE) were treated immediately at day 0, and PMRMS patients without any of these 3 features received week 6-9 radiation therapy. The D9803 PMRMS patients with ICE received day 0 X-Ray Therapy (XRT) as well; however, those with either CNP or CBBE had XRT at week 12. RESULTS: Compared with the 198 PMRMS patients from IRS-IV, the 192 PMRMS patients from D9803 had no difference (P < .05) in 5-year local failure (19% vs 19%), failure-free-survival (70% vs 67%), or overall survival (75% vs 73%) in aggregate. The 5-year local failure rates by subset did not differ when patients were classified as having no risk features (None, 15% vs 19%, P = .25), cranial nerve palsy/cranial base of skull erosion (CNP/CBBE, 15% vs 28%, P = .22), or intracranial extension (ICE, 21% vs 15%, P = .27). The D9083 patients were more likely to have received initial staging by magnetic resonance imaging (71% vs 53%). CONCLUSIONS: These data support that a delay in radiation therapy for high-risk PMRMS features of CNP/CBBE does not compromise clinical outcomes.