2 research outputs found

    Clinical Outcomes of Perioperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Penile Squamous-Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Multicenter Analysis

    Full text link
    Patients with locally advanced penile squamous-cell carcinoma have a poor prognosis. No difference in survival was noted when using chemotherapy before or after surgery. Uncertainties persist regarding the optimal management of these patients, and new treatments are urgently required, particularly for patients at highest risk, with bilateral and/or pelvic lymph node involvement. Background: The prognosis of patients with locally advanced penile squamous-cell carcinoma is primarily related to the extent of lymph node metastases. Surgery alone yields suboptimal results, and there is a paucity of data on these patients' outcomes. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study evaluated patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy from 1990 onward at 12 centers. Cox models were used to investigate prognostic factors for relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS). Results: Among the 201 included patients, 39 (19.4%) had disease of T3-4 and N0 clinical stage; the remaining patients had clinical lymph node involvement (cN+). Ninety-four patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (group 1), 78 received adjuvant chemotherapy (group 2), and 21 received both (group 3). Eight patients for whom the timing of perioperative chemotherapy administration was unavailable were included in the Cox analyses. Forty-three patients (21.4%) received chemoradiation. Multivariate analysis for OS (n = 172) revealed bilateral disease (P = .035) as a negative prognostic factor, while pelvic cN+ tended to be nonsignificantly associated with decreased OS (P = .076). One-year relapse-free survival was 35.6%, 60.6%, and 45.1% in the 3 groups, respectively. One-year OS was 61.3%, 82.2%, and 75%, respectively. No significant differences were seen on univariable analyses for OS between the groups (P = .45). Platinum type of chemotherapy and chemoradiation were not significantly associated with any outcome analyzed. Conclusion: Benchmark survival estimates for patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy for locally advanced penile squamous-cell carcinoma have been provided, with no substantial differences observed between neoadjuvant and adjuvant administration. This analysis may result in improved patient information, although prospective studies are warranted. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

    Lack of effectiveness of postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in bladder cancer patients with clinical evidence of metastatic pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph nodes only: A propensity score-based analysis

    Full text link
    Background: Limited data is available on the role, and extent of, postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy (PC-LND) in patients with clinical evidence of pelvic (cN1-3) or retroperitoneal (RP) lymph node spread from urothelial bladder carcinoma. Objective: To compare the outcomes of operated versus nonoperated patients after first-line chemotherapy. Design, setting, and participants: Data from 34 centers was collected, totaling 522 patients, treated between January 2000 and June 2015. Criteria for patient selection were the following: bladder primary tumor, lymph node metastases (pelvic. ±. RP) only, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy given. Intervention: LND (with cystectomy) versus observation after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder carcinoma. Outcome measures and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Multiple propensity score techniques were adopted, including 1:1 propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Additionally, the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed with the inclusion of the covariates, that is, with doubly robust estimation. Results and limitations: Overall, 242 (46.4%) patients received PC-LND and 280 (53.6%) observation after chemotherapy. There were 177 (33.9%) and 345 (66.1%) patients with either RP or pelvic LND only, respectively. Doubly robust estimation-adjusted comparison was not significant for improved OS for PC-LND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.31, p = 0.479), confirmed by matched analysis (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.60-1.36, p = 0.628). This was also observed in the RP subgroup (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.68-1.84). The retrospective nature of the data and the heterogeneous patient population were the major limitations. Conclusions: Although there were substantial differences between the two groups, after accounting for major confounders we report a nonsignificant OS difference with PC-LND compared with observation only. These findings may be hypothesis-generating for future prospective trials. Patient summary: We found no differences in survival by adding postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in patients with pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph node metastatic bladder cancer. The indication to perform postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in the most suitable patients requires additional studies. In contemporary cohorts of patients with metastatic pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph nodes from bladder cancer, we found no survival benefit from postchemotherapy surgery versus observation in a retrospective study. Performing postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy remains investigational in patients with metastatic bladder cancer.</p
    corecore