Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM).
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Carboplatin
/ administration & dosage
Cisplatin
/ administration & dosage
Deoxycytidine
/ administration & dosage
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ drug therapy
Prognosis
Survival Rate
Urologic Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Vinblastine
/ administration & dosage
Gemcitabine
Bladder cancer
Carboplatin/gemcitabine
Cisplatin-unfit
Renal impairment
Urothelial carcinoma
Vinflunine
Vinflunine/gemcitabine
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
06
05
2019
revised:
06
08
2019
accepted:
18
08
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
1
8
2020
entrez:
26
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%). The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. CLINICALTRIALS. NCT02665039.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m
RESULTS
Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%).
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. CLINICALTRIALS.
GOV NUMBER
NCT02665039.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31648851
pii: S0959-8049(19)30726-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.033
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Deoxycytidine
0W860991D6
vinflunine
5BF646324K
Vinblastine
5V9KLZ54CY
Carboplatin
BG3F62OND5
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Gemcitabine
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02665039']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
173-182Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.