Pathologic response rates between gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and cisplatin (MVAC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Authors

null

Jonathan Lawrence Wright

University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA

Jonathan Lawrence Wright , Franklin Lee , William Proctor Harris , Heather H. Cheng , Song Zhao , Thomas Champion , John L. Gore , James Dean , James Dean , Michael P Porter , Evan Y. Yu

Organizations

University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, University of Washington and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the bladder is associated with higher rates of pathologic complete response (CR) and improved disease-specific survival compared to those treated with radical cystectomy (RC) alone. Two standard regimens used are (1) gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC); and (2) methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC), with debate on whether there is a difference in clinical efficacy. In this analysis, we compare the pathologic outcomes at cystectomy between neoadjuvant GC and MVAC treatment. Methods: Data was retrospectively collected on patients with T2-T4 UC of the bladder who underwent RC between Sept 2003 and December 2011 at the University of Washington. Clinical and pathologic factors were recorded along with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and comorbidities. Pathologic outcomes included those with CR (pT0) and near CR (nCR = pT0/Ta/Tis). Odds ratio (OR) for CR and nCR were calculated using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for demographic (age, gender, race), medical (creatinine, diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease) and clinical factors (clinical T stage, prior BCG therapy, complete tumor debulking prior to chemotherapy). Results: A total of 78 patients received GC or MVAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by RC, including 46 who received GC and 32 who received MVAC. There was no difference in gender, renal function, cardiac disease or clinical stage between the two groups. Patients over 70 years of age primarily received GC (17/18). CR was achieved in 30% and 25% (p = 0.15) of GC and MVAC patients, respectively (multivariate OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.63). nCR was more common in those receiving GC (50% vs. 38%, p = 0.04) although non-significant in the multivariate model (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-1.16). Conclusions: We observed similar pathologic response rates for GC and MVAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy in this cohort of bladder cancer patients. These observations support the use of GC as an alternative regimen in the neoadjuvant setting.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

General Poster Session B: Prostate, Penile, Urethral, and Testicular Cancer, and Urothelial Carcinoma

Track

Urothelial Carcinoma,Prostate Cancer,Penile, Urethral, and Testicular Cancer

Sub Track

Urothelial Carcinoma

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl 6; abstr 267)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2013.31.6_suppl.267

Abstract #

267

Poster Bd #

F14

Abstract Disclosures