{"title":"Case Report | FH-Deficient Uterine Leiomyomas: Pathological Insights into a Rare Tumor.","authors":"Varun Goel, Arpit Jain, Dharmistha Basu, Nivedita Patnaik, Vineet Talwar, Siddhant Swamy, Sudhir Rawal","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Many patients cannot receive cisplatin due to advanced age, renal insufficiency, and poor performance status. As an alternative, gemcitabine-carboplatin (GCa) is frequently used, yet the comparative efficacy of GCa vs. gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) in real-world settings remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100 patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received either GC (n=60) or GCa (n=40) from January 2022 to December 2024. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and side effects of therapy. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate survival curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median PFS was 7.6 months (GC) vs 5.4 months (GCa) (p=0.03). The median OS was 13.8 months (GC) vs 10.1 months (GCa) (p=0.04). The ORR was higher in the GC group (GC, 42% versus GCa, 30%), but not statistically significant (p=0.08). Renal toxicity (grade 3/4) was higher in the GC group (18% vs 6%, p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GC demonstrates improved efficacy compared to GCa in terms of PFS and OS, although this comes with renal toxicity. GCa can be a reasonable option for patients not receiving cisplatin.</p>","PeriodicalId":53633,"journal":{"name":"The gulf journal of oncology","volume":"1 48","pages":"67-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The gulf journal of oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Many patients cannot receive cisplatin due to advanced age, renal insufficiency, and poor performance status. As an alternative, gemcitabine-carboplatin (GCa) is frequently used, yet the comparative efficacy of GCa vs. gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) in real-world settings remains uncertain.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100 patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received either GC (n=60) or GCa (n=40) from January 2022 to December 2024. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and side effects of therapy. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate survival curves.
Results: The median PFS was 7.6 months (GC) vs 5.4 months (GCa) (p=0.03). The median OS was 13.8 months (GC) vs 10.1 months (GCa) (p=0.04). The ORR was higher in the GC group (GC, 42% versus GCa, 30%), but not statistically significant (p=0.08). Renal toxicity (grade 3/4) was higher in the GC group (18% vs 6%, p=0.02).
Conclusion: GC demonstrates improved efficacy compared to GCa in terms of PFS and OS, although this comes with renal toxicity. GCa can be a reasonable option for patients not receiving cisplatin.
背景:以顺铂为基础的化疗是晚期膀胱尿路上皮癌的标准一线治疗。许多患者由于高龄、肾功能不全和运动状态不佳而不能接受顺铂治疗。作为替代方案,吉西他滨-卡铂(GCa)经常被使用,但GCa与吉西他滨-顺铂(GC)在现实环境中的比较疗效仍然不确定。方法:我们对2022年1月至2024年12月期间接受GC (n=60)或GCa (n=40)的100例晚期尿路上皮癌患者进行了回顾性分析。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。次要终点是客观缓解率(ORR)、疾病控制率(DCR)和治疗副作用。Kaplan-Meier法计算生存曲线。结果:中位PFS为7.6个月(GC) vs 5.4个月(GCa) (p=0.03)。中位OS为13.8个月(GC) vs 10.1个月(GCa) (p=0.04)。GC组的ORR较高(GC为42%,GCa为30%),但无统计学意义(p=0.08)。GC组的肾毒性(3/4级)更高(18% vs 6%, p=0.02)。结论:与GCa相比,GC在PFS和OS方面的疗效更好,尽管这伴随着肾脏毒性。对于未接受顺铂的患者,GCa是一种合理的选择。