The use of perioperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in Quebec, Canada, 2000-2016.
Journal
Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
4
12
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
entrez:
4
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite its proven benefit, studies have reported poor use of perioperative chemotherapy (POC) in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). We evaluated POC use in Quebec between January 2000 and September 2016. Using provincial health administrative databases, data were retrospectively collected from patients from two years before RC until December 2016 or death. Logistic regression was used to identify variables predicting POC use. Survival analyses were conducted using Cox regression. Analyzed covariates were age, sex, comorbidities, year of RC, residence and hospital region, distance to hospital, hospital type and size, and hospital's and surgeon's RC volume. A total of 790/4656 patients (17.0%) received POC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) use increased in recent years: 3.5% (2009), 11.2% (2012), and 20.7% (2015). POC use was increased in patients with recent surgery, a younger age, less comorbidities, residing closer to the hospital of surgery, and a high surgeon's RC volume (p<0.05). For patients treated between 2013 and 2016, a younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.80 per five years), shorter distance to the hospital (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-0.99 per 50 km), surgery in an academic hospital (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.06-3.29), and recent surgery (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.14-1.58 per year) independently predicted NAC use. These NAC users had a significantly higher overall survival rate than patients without POC (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.55-0.97). Limitations include missing data on pathological staging. NAC/POC use increased in Quebec but was lower compared to most developed countries. Its use was lower in patients residing further from the hospital and in those treated in non-academic hospitals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31793860
pii: cuaj.6094
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6094
pmc: PMC7197966
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
E191-E201Références
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 18;8(49):86130-86142
pubmed: 29156782
Urol Oncol. 2018 Feb;36(2):43-53
pubmed: 29102254
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Aug;17(4):343-6
pubmed: 8889347
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;119(8):1135-1144
pubmed: 30919984
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Feb;13(2):29-31
pubmed: 30721125
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Jan 31;:230-238
pubmed: 30763236
Urol Oncol. 2018 Mar;36(3):89.e13-89.e20
pubmed: 29254673
Urology. 2007 Jan;69(1 Suppl):62-79
pubmed: 17280909
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):859-66
pubmed: 12944571
Eur Urol. 2015 Jan;67(1):165-170
pubmed: 24472710
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Nov;47(11):1245-51
pubmed: 7722560
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Jun;7(3):508-510
pubmed: 30050809
Eur Urol. 2004 Mar;45(3):297-303
pubmed: 15036674
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Feb;13(2):24-28
pubmed: 30138098
Investig Clin Urol. 2019 Mar;60(2):64-74
pubmed: 30838338
Lancet. 2003 Jun 7;361(9373):1927-34
pubmed: 12801735
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Scand J Urol. 2019 Feb;53(1):51-55
pubmed: 30896302
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Aug;30(8):1150-6
pubmed: 26240494
World J Urol. 2020 Feb;38(2):381-388
pubmed: 31020424