Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.4924 on September 28 2009

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 27, No 33 (November 20), 2009: pp. 5634-5639
© 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Santis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Sylvester, R.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Santis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Sylvester, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Genitourinary Cancer

Randomized Phase II/III Trial Assessing Gemcitabine/ Carboplatin and Methotrexate/Carboplatin/Vinblastine in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer "Unfit" for Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy: Phase II—Results of EORTC Study 30986

Maria De Santis, Joaquim Bellmunt, Graham Mead, J. Martijn Kerst, Michael Leahy, Pablo Maroto, Iwona Skoneczna, Sandrine Marreaud, Ronald de Wit, Richard Sylvester

From the Kaiser Franz Josef Hospital and Applied Cancer Research–Institution for Translational Research; Central European Anticancer Drug Development Platform; Ludwig Boltzmann-Institute for Applied Cancer Research, Vienna, Austria; Hospital Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain; Southampton General Hospital, Southampton; St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam; Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University Hospital of San Pablo, Barcelona, Spain; Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Warsaw, Poland; and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.

Corresponding author: Maria De Santis, MD, Kaiser Franz Josef Hospital and ACR-ITR Vienna/CEADDP and LBI-ACR Vienna-CTO, Kundratstraße 3, 1100 Vienna, Austria; e-mail: maria.desantis{at}wienkav.at.

Purpose There is no standard treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CHT). To compare the activity and safety of two CHT combinations in this patient group, a randomized phase II/III trial was conducted by the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer). We report here the phase II results of the study.

Patients and Methods CHT-naïve patients with measurable disease and impaired renal function (30 mL/min < glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) and/or performance status (PS) 2 were randomly assigned to receive either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 4.5) for 21 days or M-CAVI (methotrexate 30 mg/m2 on days 1, 15, and 22; carboplatin AUC 4.5 on day 1; and vinblastine 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 15, and 22) for 28 days. End points of response and severe acute toxicity (SAT) were evaluated with respect to treatment group, renal function, PS, and Bajorin risk groups.

Results Three of 178 patients who were ineligible or did not start treatment were excluded. SAT was reported in 13.6% of patients on GC and in 23% on M-CAVI. Overall response rates were 42% (37 of 88) for GC and 30% (26 of 87) for M-CAVI. Patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min and patients in Bajorin risk group 2 showed a response rate of only 26% and 20% and an SAT rate of 26% and 25%, respectively.

Conclusion Both combinations are active in this group of unfit patients. However, patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min do not benefit from combination CHT. Alternative treatment modalities should be sought in this subgroup of poor-risk patients.

Supported by Grants No. 2U10 CA11488-28 through 5U10 CA011488-38 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, and by Eli Lilly Study Code B9E-MC-S018.

Presented in part at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, February 14-16, 2008, San Francisco, CA, and at the 44th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, May 30-June 3, 2008, Chicago, IL.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JWatch Oncology and HematologyHome page
Non-Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Cancer
Journal Watch Oncology and Hematology, January 12, 2010; 2010(112): 2 - 2.
[Full Text]



About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online