Display options
Cite
Lee FC, Harris W, Cheng HH, et al. Pathologic Response Rates of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin versus Methotrexate/Vinblastine/Adriamycin/Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer. Adv Urol. 2013;2013:317190doi: 10.1155/2013/317190.
Lee, F. C., Harris, W., Cheng, H. H., Shenoi, J., Zhao, S., Wang, J., Champion, T., Izard, J., Gore, J. L., Porter, M., Yu, E. Y., & Wright, J. L. (2013). Pathologic Response Rates of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin versus Methotrexate/Vinblastine/Adriamycin/Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer. Advances in urology, 2013317190. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/317190
Lee, Franklin C, et al. "Pathologic Response Rates of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin versus Methotrexate/Vinblastine/Adriamycin/Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer." Advances in urology vol. 2013 (2013): 317190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/317190
Lee FC, Harris W, Cheng HH, Shenoi J, Zhao S, Wang J, Champion T, Izard J, Gore JL, Porter M, Yu EY, Wright JL. Pathologic Response Rates of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin versus Methotrexate/Vinblastine/Adriamycin/Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer. Adv Urol. 2013;2013:317190. doi: 10.1155/2013/317190. Epub 2013 Dec 08. PMID: 24382958; PMCID: PMC3871504.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Adv Urol. 2013;2013:317190. doi: 10.1155/2013/317190. Epub 2013 Dec 08.

Pathologic Response Rates of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin versus Methotrexate/Vinblastine/Adriamycin/Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer.

Advances in urology

Franklin C Lee, William Harris, Heather H Cheng, Jaideep Shenoi, Song Zhao, Junfeng Wang, Thomas Champion, Jason Izard, John L Gore, Michael Porter, Evan Y Yu, Jonathan L Wright

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA ; Department of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Health Sciences Building, 1959 NE Pacific, BB-1115, Box 356510, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
  2. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA ; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
  3. Group Health Permanente, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
  4. Huntsman Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
  5. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
  6. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA ; Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.

PMID: 24382958 PMCID: PMC3871504 DOI: 10.1155/2013/317190

Abstract

Objectives. To compare pathologic outcomes after treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) versus methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) in the neoadjuvant setting. Methods. Data was retrospectively collected on 178 patients with T2-T4 bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy between 2003 and 2011. Outcomes of interest included those with complete response (pT0) and any response (≤pT1). Odds ratios were calculated using multivariate logistic regression. Results. Compared to those who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, there were more patients with complete response (28% versus 9%, OR 3.11 (95% CI: 1.45-6.64), P = 0.03) and any response (52% versus 25%, OR 3.23 (95% CI: 1.21-8.64), P = 0.01). Seventy-two patients received GC (n = 41) or MVAC (n = 31). CR was achieved in 29% and 22% of GC and MVAC patients, respectively (multivariate OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.10-1.58). Any response (≤pT1) was achieved in 56% of GC and 45% of MVAC patients (multivariate OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.12-1.71). Conclusions. We observed similar pathologic response rates for GC and MVAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy in this cohort of patients with muscle invasive urothelial cancer (MIBC). Our findings support the use of GC as an alternative regimen in the neoadjuvant setting.

References

  1. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 1;19(3):666-75 - PubMed
  2. Curr Urol Rep. 2012 Apr;13(2):136-46 - PubMed
  3. J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):451-4 - PubMed
  4. Urology. 2012 Feb;79(2):384-90 - PubMed
  5. J Urol. 1992 Mar;147(3):606-8 - PubMed
  6. Urol Oncol. 2013 Nov;31(8):1737-43 - PubMed
  7. Urology. 2007 Jan;69(1 Suppl):62-79 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):859-66 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 1;29(16):2171-7 - PubMed
  10. Cancer. 2008 Nov 1;113(9):2471-7 - PubMed
  11. BJU Int. 2011 Mar;107(6):898-904 - PubMed
  12. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1229-38 - PubMed
  13. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2012 Dec;10(4):246-50 - PubMed
  14. Cancer. 2009 Feb 15;115(4):792-9 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4602-8 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep;18(17):3068-77 - PubMed
  17. J Urol. 2006 Dec;176(6 Pt 1):2414-22; discussion 2422 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 19;322(16):1129-38 - PubMed
  19. Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):523-33 - PubMed

Publication Types