Printer Friendly

Perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Author(s): Peter Black, MD, FRCSC, Alan So, MD FRCSC

Transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder is chemosensitive,[sup.1]-[sup.3] but its use in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings combined with radical cystectomy remains controversial. Despite aggressive surgical management, up to 50% of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will develop tumour recurrence, suggesting that a significant proportion of these patients have micro-metastases at the time of surgery.[sup.4] Early application of multimodal therapy in bladder cancer is therefore an attractive paradigm.

The case for neoadjuvant chemotherapy

The level I evidence demonstrating a survival benefit with neoadjuvant chemotherapy has now been established for several years. The data have been compiled in multiple prior reviews and have also been analyzed in three pertinent meta-analyses.[sup.5]-[sup.7] The primary data include, most notably, two Nordic trials,[sup.8]-[sup.10] a combined UK Medical Research Council/European Organizations for Research and Treatment of Cancer (MRC/EORTC) trial[sup.11] and an Intergroup trial in the United States.[sup.12] These trials have been conducted on patients with T2-T4a, N0 M0 disease and incorporated various cisplatin-based regimens.

Improvements in survival rates with neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been modest. The Intergroup trial showed the widest 5-year survival margin, namely 57% in 153 patients undergoing cystectomy after chemotherapy compared to 43% in 154 patients undergoing cystectomy alone.[sup.12] This translates into a median survival increase from 46 to 77 months. This trial was also noteworthy because it used MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, cisplatin), the most efficacious chemotherapy regimen. In the larger MRC/EORTC trial of 976 patients there was a 6% absolute increase in overall survival at 5 years.[sup.11] A similar magnitude of survival benefit was found in the 3 meta-analyses comprising about 3000 patients, with a survival advantage at 5 years of 50% compared to 45%. These meta-analyses included patients who underwent radiotherapy for local treatment, although this did not appear to influence survival.

Secondary reasons to support the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer include an increased probability of having no residual cancer in the cystectomy specimen (pT0) and a reduced rate of positive surgical margins.[sup.12,13] The pT0 rate increased from 15% to 38% in the Intergroup trial and from 12.3% to 32.5% in the MRC/EORTC trial. Patients with pT0 disease have an excellent survival rate, and those with positive surgical margins invariably succumb to the disease.

A further advantage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the ability to monitor tumour response during therapy. This offers prognostic information and allows modification of therapy based on response. This is not only of clinical utility but it also makes the neoadjuvant setting particularly attractive for testing novel agents. The efficacy of novel agents can be assessed by gross tumour response and by molecular markers of response (pharmacodynamics) in the surgical specimen.

Controversy remains regarding the selection of patients for neoadjuvant therapy. While some centres encourage its use in any patient with muscle-invasive disease (clinical T2 or greater),[sup.14,15] others reserve it only for locally advanced disease (cT3/T4a). Further risk stratification may include patients with cT2 tumours associated with hydronephrosis or lymphovascular invasion, since patients with these risk factors fare as poorly as patients with cT3 tumours.[sup.13,16] The argument against use in patients with cT2 tumours is that these patients have an excellent likelihood of cure with cystectomy alone and the incremental benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not be worth the risk of toxicity. The absolute survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to be the same across all stages but the relative improvement is greater for higher stages.[sup.6,17] While an improvement from 55% to 60% in T2 disease is only a relative benefit of 9%, an improvement from 25% to 30% for pT4a disease is a relative increase of 20%.

Further controversy surrounds the choice of chemotherapy. The level I evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is based on MVAC, CMV (cisplatin, methotrexate, vinblastine) and similar regimens and MVAC must therefore be considered the gold standard. Most medical oncologists, however, have abandoned MVAC in favour of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) due to the reduced toxicity.[sup.2] This choice is based on extrapolation of data using GC in patients with metastatic disease and has not been adequately tested for neoadjuvant therapy. Limited single-institution retrospective data are conflicting.[sup.15,18] While a careful balance must be found between toxicity and efficacy in patients with metastatic disease where the goal is palliation, there is no tolerance for poorer efficacy in the neoadjuvant setting especially in younger healthier patients. Dose-dense MVAC, which has also only been tested for metastatic disease, is used by some instead of traditional MVAC to reduce toxicity.[sup.3]

The case against neoadjuvant chemotherapy

The main shortcoming of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the potential toxicity, especially when balanced with the modest benefit and the risk of overtreatment in a large proportion of patients. There is a paucity of data for assessing toxicity from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.[sup.12,13,19] and the fear of toxicity relates more to traditional MVAC or similar regimens, even though most patients are currently receiving the less toxic GC.[sup.2,20] It would therefore appear that the hesitation to administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be exaggerated. There is some data to indicate that surgical complications are not increased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.[sup.19] Many urologists offer anecdotal reports that the surgery itself is more difficult after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The big experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center has revealed an increased risk of prolonged post-cystectomy ileus after neoadjuvant MVAC (Colin Dinney, personal communication)

If ineffective chemotherapy is delivered, there is a delay in definitive local therapy, which can be potentially detrimental to overall survival.[sup.21] The evidence would indicate that only those patients with a major response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy benefit from it, and there is also the presumption that those without a major response may be harmed by the delay in cystectomy. It will be important in the future to develop better tools for risk stratification and response prognostication in patients with locally advanced disease to direct a more efficient use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.[sup.22]

The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain is some clinical scenarios. Aberrant histologies such as micropapillary and sarcomatoid bladder carcinoma have either a reduced or an unknown response to common urothelial chemotherapy regimens.[sup.23] Lack of efficacy would make the additional delay in surgery detrimental, so that primary radical cystectomy is preferred by most. Small cell carcinoma is an exception; it requires immediate multiagent chemotherapy.[sup.24]

Additional challenges are posed by the elderly and patients with renal failure. Older patients are less likely to tolerate both surgery and chemotherapy and for this reason may not be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Many elderly but otherwise healthy patients will tolerate both modalities, however, and their treatment should not be compromised based on age alone. The use of cisplatin is restricted in patients with renal failure and has led to the investigation of carboplatin as an alternative,[sup.25] but we know from the metastatic setting that this agent is less efficacious against transitional cell carcinoma, so alternate regimens require investigation.[sup.26]

The case for adjuvant chemotherapy

The primary advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy is that it can be tailored to individual patient risk based on pathological criteria. Such risk stratification is superior to any preoperative clinical assessment and may therefore prevent the overtreatment of good prognosis patients, especially those with [less than or equal to]pT2 disease who have a 5-year recurrence-free survival of up to 80%.[sup.4,27] Since cystectomy is the single most effective therapy for resectable disease, it may be advantageous to perform surgery first, thereby avoiding the delay necessary when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is administered.[sup.28]-[sup.30] Furthermore, compared to salvage chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy allows treatment of potential metastatic disease when tumour burden is at its minimum rather than waiting for clinically recognizable metastatic disease to occur. Thus, adjuvant therapy may allow for optimal timing of surgery and personalization of chemotherapy.

The case against adjuvant chemotherapy

A theoretical disadvantage of adjuvant chemotherapy is the delay in treatment of potential micro-metastatic disease while the patient undergoes and recovers from surgery. The delay from time of initial diagnosis to radical cystectomy, combined with the delay from time of surgery to the time of starting chemotherapy, may represent a clinically significant delay to systemic treatment. This delay may further escalate if patients develop surgical complications. Moreover, fewer patients will receive systemic chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting compared to a neoadjuvant setting.[sup.13] An additional disadvantage of adjuvant chemotherapy is the lack of measurable disease from which to assess tumour response.[sup.31] It is therefore impossible to tailor therapy to response, and efficacy of adjuvant therapy may only be assessed after tumour recurrence or death.

The ultimate argument against adjuvant chemotherapy at this time is the lack of evidence supporting its clinical efficacy. Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy have been conducted, most have significant shortcomings and the evidence is therefore less convincing than for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The data are summarized in Table 1. The University of Southern California trial, for example, showed enhanced time to progression and median overall survival in patients with pT3/T4 or pN+ bladder cancer receiving cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy.[sup.32] This was the first trial to demonstrate a potential benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy but has been criticized for methodological flaws, including heterogeneity in chemotherapy regimens and small sample size.

Similar results were obtained in 2 even smaller studies in Germany[sup.33]-[sup.35] and Stanford.[sup.36] Both studies were stopped early due to the benefit in time to progression found at interim analysis. Both studies continued to show enhanced disease-free survival at 10 and 5 years, respectively, but there was no improvement in overall survival (OS) at the same time points. This may be related to small sample size. The German study, in which the OS advantage is nearly significant, has been criticized because most patients with recurrences in the observation arm did not receive salvage chemotherapy.[sup.35] The Stanford study, on the other hand, cites the administration of salvage chemotherapy as a possible reason for the lack of benefit for OS.[sup.36] Another problem with some of these trials is that up to 25% of patients randomized to chemotherapy did not receive it.[sup.35] The Swiss trial is considered deficient because single-agent cisplatin has been shown in other trials to be insufficient therapy.[sup.37]

The most recent results assessing the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy have been reported by the National Research Council in Italy where patients with pT2 or higher-staged disease were randomized to receive 4 cycles of GC given adjuvantly or at time of relapse (salvage). This study accrued 194 patients and preliminary results at 3 years showed that OS was 48% in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared to 67% in the salvage arm, but the differences were not statistically significant.[sup.38,39]

A recent meta-analysis assessing adjuvant chemotherapy from six RCTs with a total of 491 patients showed a 9% improvement in absolute survival at 3-year (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.96, p = 0.019).[sup.40] However, the authors point out that the sample sizes for all of the studies were too low and a definitive recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy could not be made.

Although methodologically imperfect and inadequately powered, these RCTs show that adjuvant chemotherapy is feasible and safe. The data indicate that patients most likely to benefit are those with high-risk disease (pT3/4 and/or pN+).[sup.41] Further risk stratification may be possible with molecular characterization of bladder cancer, although a multi-centre trial randomizing patients to adjuvant chemotherapy based on p53 status was recently closed early after an interim analysis demonstrated insufficient benefit.[sup.42]

Conclusion

There continues to be considerable controversy around the use of systemic chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. While there is high-level evidence for a survival benefit after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the benefit is modest and the potential toxicity before planned cystectomy appears to be deterring many physicians from its administration. The evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, is less compelling and the role of adjuvant compared to salvage chemotherapy requires further investigation. At the same time, research continues on identifying molecular and clinical markers to best stratify patients for optimal perioperative therapy. Finally, with the advent of targeted therapies, one can anticipate new treatment paradigms and improved patient outcomes in the near future.

Competing interests: None declared.

This paper has been peer-reviewed.

References

1.. Sternberg CN, Yagoda A, Scher HI, et al. Methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin for advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Efficacy and patterns of response and relapse. Cancer 1989;64:2448-58.

2.. von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3068-77.

3.. Sternberg CN, de Mulder P, Schornagel JH, et al. Seven year update of an EORTC phase III trial of high-dose intensity M-VAC chemotherapy and G-CSF versus classic M-VAC in advanced urothelial tract tumours. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:50-4.

4.. Stein JP, Skinner DG. Radical cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of a standard procedure. World J Urol 2006;24:296-304.

5.. Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2003;361:1927-34.

6.. Advanced Bladder Cancer Overview Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD005246.

7.. Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data advanced bladder cancer (ABC) meta-analysis collaboration. Eur Urol 2005;48:202-5discussion 205-6.

8.. Malmstrom PU, Rintala E, Wahlqvist R, et al. Five-year followup of a prospective trial of radical cystectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Nordic Cystectomy Trial I. The Nordic Cooperative Bladder Cancer Study Group. J Urol 1996;155:1903-6.

9.. Sherif A, Holmberg L, Rintala E, et al. Neoadjuvant cisplatinum based combination chemotherapy in patients with invasive bladder cancer: a combined analysis of two Nordic studies. Eur Urol 2004;45:297-303.

10.. Sherif A, Rintala E, Mestad O, et al. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-methotrexate chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer -- Nordic cystectomy trial 2. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2002;36:419-25.

11.. Neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;354:533-40.

12.. Grossman HB, Natale RB, Tangen CM, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:859-66.

13.. Millikan R, Dinney C, Swanson D, et al. Integrated therapy for locally advanced bladder cancer: final report of a randomized trial of cystectomy plus adjuvant M-VAC versus cystectomy with both preoperative and postoperative M-VAC. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4005-13.

14.. Herr HW. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A New Treatment Paradigm for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol 2008.

15.. Weight CJ, Garcia JA, Hansel DE, et al. Lack of pathologic down-staging with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a contemporary series. Cancer 2009;115:792-9.

16.. Black PC, Dinney CP. Bladder cancer angiogenesis and metastasis--translation from murine model to clinical trial. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2007;26:623-34.

17.. Feneley MR, Harland S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a new standard of care? BJU Int 2003;92:877-8.

18.. Dash A, Pettus JAt, Herr HW, et al. A role for neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a retrospective experience. Cancer 2008;113:2471-7.

19.. Hall MC, Swanson DA, Dinney CP. Complications of radical cystectomy: impact of the timing of perioperative chemotherapy. Urology 1996;47:826-30.

20.. Sternberg CN, de Mulder PH, Schornagel JH, et al. Randomized phase III trial of high-dose-intensity methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) chemotherapy and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus classic MVAC in advanced urothelial tract tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocol no. 30924. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2638-46.

21.. Gore JL, Lai J, Setodji CM, et al. Mortality increases when radical cystectomy is delayed more than 12 weeks : results From a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Analysis. Cancer 2009;115:988-96.

22.. Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF, Palapattu GS, et al. Precystectomy nomogram for prediction of advanced bladder cancer stage. Eur Urol 2006;50:1254-60discussion 61-2.

23.. Kamat AM, Gee JR, Dinney CP, et al. The case for early cystectomy in the treatment of nonmuscle invasive micropapillary bladder carcinoma. J Urol 2006;175:881-5.

24.. Siefker-Radtke AO, Dinney CP, Abrahams NA, et al. Evidence supporting preoperative chemotherapy for small cell carcinoma of the bladder: a retrospective review of the M. D. Anderson cancer experience. J Urol 2004;172:481-4.

25.. Dash A, Galsky MD, Vickers AJ, et al. Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 2006;107:506-13.

26.. Smith DC, Mackler NJ, Dunn RL, et al. Phase II trial of paclitaxel, carboplatin and gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 2008;180:2384-8discussion 2388.

27.. Lee CT, Madii R, Daignault S, et al. Cystectomy delay more than 3 months from initial bladder cancer diagnosis results in decreased disease specific and overall survival. J Urol 2006;175:1262-7discussion 1267.

28.. Sanchez-Ortiz RF, Huang WC, Mick R, et al. An interval longer than 12 weeks between the diagnosis of muscle invasion and cystectomy is associated with worse outcome in bladder carcinoma. J Urol 2003;169:110-5discussion 115.

29.. Mahmud SM, Fong B, Fahmy N, et al. Effect of preoperative delay on survival in patients with bladder cancer undergoing cystectomy in Quebec: a population based study. J Urol 2006;175:78-83discussion 83.

30.. Fradet Y, Aprikian A, Dranitsaris G, et al. Does prolonging the time to bladder cancer surgery affect long-term cancer control: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Urol 2006;13Suppl 3:37-47.

31.. North S. Why consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder? Can Urol Assoc J 2008;2:222-4.

32.. Skinner DG, Daniels JR, Russell CA, et al. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy following cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer: a prospective comparative trial. J Urol 1991;145:459-64discussion 464-7.

33.. Stockle M, Meyenburg W, Wellek S, et al. Advanced bladder cancer (stages pT3b, pT4a, pN1 and pN2): improved survival after radical cystectomy and 3 adjuvant cycles of chemotherapy. Results of a controlled prospective study. J Urol 1992;148:302-6discussion 306-7.

34.. Stockle M, Meyenburg W, Wellek S, et al. Adjuvant polychemotherapy of nonorgan-confined bladder cancer after radical cystectomy revisited: long-term results of a controlled prospective study and further clinical experience. J Urol 1995;153:47-52.

35.. Lehmann J, Franzaring L, Thuroff J, Wellek S, Stockle M. Complete long-term survival data from a trial of adjuvant chemotherapy vs control after radical cystectomy for locally advanced bladder cancer. BJU Int 2006;97:42-7.

36.. Freiha F, Reese J, Torti FM. A randomized trial of radical cystectomy versus radical cystectomy plus cisplatin, vinblastine and methotrexate chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol 1996;155:495-9discussion 499-500.

37.. Studer UE, Bacchi M, Biedermann C, et al. Adjuvant cisplatin chemotherapy following cystectomy for bladder cancer: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 1994;152:81-4.

38.. Cognetti F, Ruggeri EM, Felici A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with cisplatin+gemcitabine (CG) versus chemotherapy (CT) at relapse (CR) in patients (pts) with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) submitted to radical cystectomy (RC): An Italian multicenter randomised phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:255s (abstr 5023).

39.. Calabro F, Sternberg CN. Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol 2009;55:348-58.

40.. Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration. Eur Urol 2005;48:189-99discussion 199-201.

41.. Park J, Park S, Song C, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder with lymph node involvement and/or lymphovascular invasion treated by radical cystectomy. Urology 2007;70:257-62.

42.. Lerner SP. p53-Targeted Therapy Trial in Bladder Cancer.Paper presented at: The 9th Annual Winter Meeting of the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO)December 4-6 2008Bethesda, MD.

Table

Table 1: Randomized control trials of adjuvant chemotherapy after radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer [Table omitted]

Author Affiliation(s):

[1] From the Department of Urologic Sciences, UBC, Vancouver, BC

Correspondence: Dr. Alan So, The Prostate Centre at the Vancouver General Hospital, 2660 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H-3Z6; fax: 604-875-5654; alan.so@ubc.ca
COPYRIGHT 2009 Canadian Urological Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Review
Author:Black, Peter; So, Alan
Publication:Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ)
Article Type:Clinical report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Dec 1, 2009
Words:3796
Previous Article:Is sparing the prostate still considered radical cystectomy? The case against prostate-sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer.
Next Article:Management of metastatic urothelial cancer: the role of surgery as an adjunct to chemotherapy.
Topics:


Related Articles
Chemotherapy improves gastric cancer survival.
In favour of bladder preservation using combined modality treatment.
The optimal management of T1 high-grade bladder cancer.
Histologic variants of urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histology in bladder cancer.
The management of BCG failure in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an update.
Role of lymphadenectomy for invasive bladder cancer.
Personalized medicine in advanced urothelial cancer: when to treat, how to treat and who to treat.
Surveillance strategies after definitive therapy of invasive bladder cancer.
NMP22: Does it have a predictive potential for recurrence and progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer?

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters