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.
Aged
Carcinoma, Transitional Cell
/ drug therapy
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
/ adverse effects
Cystectomy
/ methods
Humans
Lymph Node Excision
/ adverse effects
Lymph Nodes
/ pathology
Lymphatic Metastasis
/ pathology
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
/ methods
Pelvis
/ pathology
Progression-Free Survival
Propensity Score
Retroperitoneal Space
/ pathology
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
First-line chemotherapy
Postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy
Propensity-score
Urothelial carcinoma
Journal
European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
25
03
2017
revised:
04
05
2017
accepted:
22
05
2017
pubmed:
30
7
2017
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
30
7
2017
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. To compare the outcomes of operated versus nonoperated patients after first-line chemotherapy. 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. LND (with cystectomy) versus observation after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder carcinoma. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 28753897
pii: S2405-4569(17)30125-6
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.006
pmc: PMC5712487
mid: NIHMS901371
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
242-249Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2113-7
pubmed: 12771730
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Dec;69:1-8
pubmed: 27814469
J Urol. 2001 Mar;165(3):811-4
pubmed: 11176475
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2546-52
pubmed: 10561321
Stat Med. 2013 Jul 20;32(16):2837-49
pubmed: 23239115
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Apr;35(4):352-5
pubmed: 18722076
Eur Urol. 2017 Feb;71(2):281-289
pubmed: 27726966
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Feb;13(1):80-86.e1
pubmed: 25027186
J Urol. 2016 Jan;195(1):53-9
pubmed: 26205531
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 1;34(22):2627-35
pubmed: 27269939
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Aug;92(2):449-53
pubmed: 21801905
Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1106-13
pubmed: 17367917
J Urol. 2004 Jan;171(1):145-8
pubmed: 14665863
J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):932-6
pubmed: 24211599
Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083-107
pubmed: 19757444
Eur Urol. 2009 Jun;55(6):1293-9
pubmed: 19058907
Urology. 2001 Jan;57(1):55-9
pubmed: 11164143
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2004 Jul;75(1):45-9
pubmed: 15158046
Stat Med. 2013 Aug 30;32(19):3388-414
pubmed: 23508673