Mohamad Abou Chakra, Vignesh T Packiam, Ian M McElree, Sarah L Mott, Michael A O'Donnell
{"title":"膀胱内序贯使用吉西他滨和多西他赛与卡介苗治疗欧洲泌尿外科协会极高风险非肌层浸润性膀胱癌的疗效对比。","authors":"Mohamad Abou Chakra, Vignesh T Packiam, Ian M McElree, Sarah L Mott, Michael A O'Donnell","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends early radical cystectomy (RC) for very-high-risk (VHR) nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), in part due to suboptimal efficacy from BCG in this setting. Effective bladder-sparing alternatives are needed. We compared the oncological outcomes of Gemcitabine/Docetaxel (Gem/Doce) to BCG therapy in patients with VHR NMIBC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of oncological outcomes in 129 treatment naïve VHR NMIBC patients receiving intravesical Gem/Doce (n = 65) was compared to BCG (n = 64) using Cox regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12- and 24-months was 63% and 54% for BCG compared to 79% and 73% for Gem/Doce. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24-months for BCG was 88% compared to 97% for Gem/Doce. Gem/Doce showed a decreased risk of tumor recurrence compared to BCG (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.99; P = 0.05). Moreover, patients in the Gem/Doce group were less prone to discontinue therapy (3.1% vs. 14.1%; P = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gem/Doce provides a level of efficacy in terms of RFS and PFS at least as good as BCG for treatment naïve VHR NMIBC. Prospective validation is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy of sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel versus BCG for the treatment of European association of urology very-high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamad Abou Chakra, Vignesh T Packiam, Ian M McElree, Sarah L Mott, Michael A O'Donnell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends early radical cystectomy (RC) for very-high-risk (VHR) nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), in part due to suboptimal efficacy from BCG in this setting. Effective bladder-sparing alternatives are needed. We compared the oncological outcomes of Gemcitabine/Docetaxel (Gem/Doce) to BCG therapy in patients with VHR NMIBC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of oncological outcomes in 129 treatment naïve VHR NMIBC patients receiving intravesical Gem/Doce (n = 65) was compared to BCG (n = 64) using Cox regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12- and 24-months was 63% and 54% for BCG compared to 79% and 73% for Gem/Doce. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24-months for BCG was 88% compared to 97% for Gem/Doce. Gem/Doce showed a decreased risk of tumor recurrence compared to BCG (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.99; P = 0.05). Moreover, patients in the Gem/Doce group were less prone to discontinue therapy (3.1% vs. 14.1%; P = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gem/Doce provides a level of efficacy in terms of RFS and PFS at least as good as BCG for treatment naïve VHR NMIBC. Prospective validation is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.012\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.012","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The efficacy of sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel versus BCG for the treatment of European association of urology very-high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Background: The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends early radical cystectomy (RC) for very-high-risk (VHR) nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), in part due to suboptimal efficacy from BCG in this setting. Effective bladder-sparing alternatives are needed. We compared the oncological outcomes of Gemcitabine/Docetaxel (Gem/Doce) to BCG therapy in patients with VHR NMIBC.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of oncological outcomes in 129 treatment naïve VHR NMIBC patients receiving intravesical Gem/Doce (n = 65) was compared to BCG (n = 64) using Cox regression.
Results: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12- and 24-months was 63% and 54% for BCG compared to 79% and 73% for Gem/Doce. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24-months for BCG was 88% compared to 97% for Gem/Doce. Gem/Doce showed a decreased risk of tumor recurrence compared to BCG (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.99; P = 0.05). Moreover, patients in the Gem/Doce group were less prone to discontinue therapy (3.1% vs. 14.1%; P = 0.03).
Conclusions: Gem/Doce provides a level of efficacy in terms of RFS and PFS at least as good as BCG for treatment naïve VHR NMIBC. Prospective validation is needed.
期刊介绍：
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
