Timing of changing therapy from gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy based on real-world data of advanced urothelial carcinoma

Cisplatin-based systemic chemotherapy is the gold-standard approach for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, the optimal number of cycles is still unclear. The current study retrospectively assessed the clinical outcome in patients who...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Oncology letters 2020-04, Vol.19 (4), p.2943-2949
Hauptverfasser: Furubayashi, Nobuki, Negishi, Takahito, Takamatsu, Dai, Ieiri, Kosuke, Inoue, Tomohiro, Tsukino, Keiji, Nakamura, Motonobu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Cisplatin-based systemic chemotherapy is the gold-standard approach for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, the optimal number of cycles is still unclear. The current study retrospectively assessed the clinical outcome in patients who received gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer to clarify the timing of switching from GC therapy. A total of 61 patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who received first-line chemotherapy with GC were retrospectively reviewed at National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center between June 2009 and August 2017. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The significance of associations between the clinical parameters and OS was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The median cycle number for GC chemotherapy was 4. The median PFS and OS of all cases was 5.2 and 14.1 months, respectively. The multivariate analyses revealed that a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio >= 3.0 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.521, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.179-5.624; P=0.017) and best response to GC therapy of CR+PR (HR 0.110; 95% CI=0.028-0.411; P
ISSN:1792-1074
1792-1082
DOI:10.3892/ol.2020.11368