3.8 Article

Tolerability and Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with a Tri-Weekly Interval Methotrexate, Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, and Cisplatin Regimen for Patients with Locally Advanced Bladder Cancer

Journal

CASE REPORTS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 450-460

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000490458

Keywords

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Modified MVAC; Muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Compared with standard treatment, a modified tri-weekly MVAC (methotrexate, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and cisplatin) treatment regimen with a high cisplatin dose intensity shows good efficacy and lower toxicity. Thus, we retrospectively investigated the tolerability and efficacy of a modified tri-weekly MVAC neoadjuvant regimen. Methods: We analyzed 25 patients with locally advanced bladder cancer medicated by a modified tri-weekly MVAC neoadjuvant regimen that omits treatment on days 15 and 22. The efficacy and tolerability were assessed retrospectively. Results: The numbers of patients in clinical stages 2, 3, and 4 were 13 (52.0%), 1 (4.0%), and 11 (44.0%), respectively. Surgery could be performed on all patients. Five patients (20.0%) had no cancer remaining in their surgical specimens. Remaining non-muscle-invasive cancer without metastasis was observed in 7 patients (28.0%), and the total downstaging rate was 44.0%. The 5-year overall and relapse-free survival rates were 79.0 and 75.0%, respectively. The overall relative dose intensity was 0.90. Serious hematologic toxicities rated grade 3 or greater were leukopenia in 6 patients (24.0%) and anemia in 1 patient (4.0%). Conclusions: Sufficient efficacy and tolerability of a modified tri-weekly MVAC neoadjuvant regimen were suggested. Thus, tri-weekly modified MVAC may be an option for neoadjuvant chemotherapy of advanced bladder cancer. (C) 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available