4.7 Article

Randomized phase III trial of 2nd line gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced bladder cancer: short-term versus prolonged treatment [German Association of Urological Oncology (AUO) trial AB 20/99]

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 288-294

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq398

Keywords

bladder cancer; chemotherapy; clinical trial; phase III; second-line; transitional cell carcinoma

Categories

Funding

  1. Lilly Oncology Inc.
  2. Bristol Meyers Squibb Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The second-line chemotherapeutic treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) after failure of cisplatin-based first-line therapy needs to be improved. Based on encouraging phase II data of gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) (GP), this trial was designed to compare a short-term (arm A) versus a prolonged (arm B) second-line combination chemotherapy of GP. Patients and methods: Of 102 randomized patients, 96 were eligible for analysis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR) and toxicity. Results: Neither OS [arm A: 7.8 (95% CI: 4.2-11.4), arm B: 8.0 (95% CI: 4.9-11.1) months] and PFS [ arm A: 4.0 (95% CI: 0-8.0), arm B: 3.1 (95% CI: 1.9-4.2) months] nor ORR (arm A: 37.5%, arm B: 41.5%) were significantly different. On prolonged treatment, more patients experienced severe anemia (arm A: 6.7% versus arm B: 26.7% grade III/IV anemia; P = 0.011). In six patients, treatment was stopped during the first cycle due to disease progression or toxicity. Two patients died due to treatment-related toxic effects. Conclusion: Due to rapid tumor progression and toxicity at this dosage and schedule in a multicenter setting, it was not feasible to deliver a prolonged regimen. However, a high response rate of similar to 40% makes GP a promising second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic UC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available