Gemcitabine and docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective analysis
Received 5 May 2018
Accepted for publication 27 July 2018
Published 18 September 2018 Volume 2018:10 Pages 3669—3677
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Professor Nakshatri
Taku Naiki,1 Keitaro Iida,1 Toshiki Etani,1 Takashi Nagai,2 Yutaro Tanaka,1 Yosuke Sugiyama,3 Ryosuke Ando,1 Shuzo Hamamoto,1 Rika Banno,4 Daisuke Nagata,4 Noriyasu Kawai,1 Takahiro Yasui1
1Department of Nephro-Urology, Nagoya City University, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan; 2Department of Urology, Anjo Kosei Hospital, Anjo, Japan; 3Department of Pharmacy, Nagoya City University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan; 4Department of Urology, Konan Kosei Hospital, Konan, Japan
Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) as a second-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).
Patients and methods: A total of 122 patients with mUC who were previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received second-line GD therapy from July 2010 to June 2016. This consisted of 800 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 40 mg/m2 docetaxel on days 1 and 8 in each 21-day cycle. Using pooled cumulative data, we divided patients into the following three groups based on age: <65 years (Group A), from 65 to 74 years (Group B), and ≥75 years (Group C), and then the data were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were evaluated for treatment-related toxicities and assessed at every cycle by imaging studies. Kaplan–Meier curves were used for survival and recurrence analyses. Furthermore, potential prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed via univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.
Results: The median follow-up period was 8.2 months (range: 2.1–100). The median number of treatment cycles was three (range: 1–16) in Group A, three (1–15) in Group B, and two (1–11) in Group C. The objective response rate was not significantly different between the three groups. In addition, PFS and OS from the start of second-line GD therapy were also not significantly different. According to univariate and multivariate analyses of the second-line GD-treated cohort, a good performance status was the only prognostic factor for PFS and OS. In Group C, myelosuppression including predominant neutropenia and anemia, fatigue, and nausea were the main common adverse events. However, the incidence of neutropenia and a reduction in platelets were not significantly different between the three groups. Treatment-related deaths did not occur in this study.
Conclusion: In this study, GD combination therapy as a second-line treatment for mUC resulted in favorable tumor responses and few treatment-related toxicities, even among elderly patients.
Keywords: gemcitabine and docetaxel, elderly patients, second-line, metastatic urothelial carcinoma
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]