Refining neoadjuvant therapy clinical trial design for muscle-invasive bladder cancer before cystectomy: a joint US Food and Drug Administration and Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network workshop.
Journal
Nature reviews. Urology
ISSN: 1759-4820
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101500082
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
accepted:
13
07
2021
pubmed:
12
9
2021
medline:
21
1
2022
entrez:
11
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The success of the use of novel therapies in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma has contributed to growing interest in evaluating these therapies at earlier stages of the disease. However, trials evaluating these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting must have clearly defined study elements and appropriately selected end points to ensure the applicability of the trial and enable interpretation of the study results. To advance the development of rational trial design, a public workshop jointly sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network convened in August 2019. Clinicians, clinical trialists, radiologists, biostatisticians, patients, advocates and other stakeholders discussed key elements and end points when designing trials of neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), identifying opportunities to refine eligibility, design and end points for neoadjuvant trials in MIBC. Although pathological complete response (pCR) is already being used as a co-primary end point, both individual-level and trial-level surrogacy for time-to-event end points, such as event-free survival or overall survival, remain incompletely characterized in MIBC. Additionally, use of pCR is limited by heterogeneity in pathological evaluation and the fact that the magnitude of pCR improvement that might translate into a meaningful clinical benefit remains unclear. Given existing knowledge gaps, capture of highly granular patient-related, tumour-related and treatment-related characteristics in the current generation of neoadjuvant MIBC trials will be critical to informing the design of future trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34508246
doi: 10.1038/s41585-021-00505-w
pii: 10.1038/s41585-021-00505-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
37-46Informations de copyright
© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Griffiths, G., Hall, R., Sylvester, R., Raghavan, D. & Parmar, M. K. International phase III trial assessing neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of the BA06 30894 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2171–2177 (2011).
pubmed: 21502557
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.3139
Grossman, H. B. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder. Cancer 349, 859–866 (2003). This was the first randomized trial in MIBC that included pCR as a key end point, reported pCR results in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and control arms, and also survival results according to pCR status.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data advanced bladder cancer (ABC) meta-analysis collaboration. Eur. Urol. 48, 202–205; discussion 205–206 (2005).
Thompson, R. H. et al. Eligibility for neoadjuvant/adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy among radical cystectomy patients. BJU Int. 113, E17–E21 (2014).
pubmed: 24006893
doi: 10.1111/bju.12274
Jiang, D. M. et al. Defining cisplatin eligibility in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 18, 104–114 (2021).
pubmed: 33432181
doi: 10.1038/s41585-020-00404-6
Powles, T. et al. Enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1125–1135 (2021).
pubmed: 33577729
pmcid: 8450892
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035807
Loriot, Y. et al. Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 338–348 (2019).
pubmed: 31340094
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817323
Dietrich, B., Siefker-Radtke, A. O., Srinivas, S. & Yu, E. Y. Systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma: current standards and treatment considerations. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 38, 342–353 (2018).
pubmed: 30231356
doi: 10.1200/EDBK_201193
Donat, S. M. et al. Potential impact of postoperative early complications on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a high-volume tertiary cancer center experience. Eur. Urol. 55, 177–185 (2009).
pubmed: 18640770
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.018
Fisher, B., Gunduz, N. & Saffer, E. A. Influence of the interval between primary tumor removal and chemotherapy on kinetics and growth of metastases. Cancer Res. 43, 1488–1492 (1983).
pubmed: 6831397
Petrelli, F. et al. Correlation of pathologic complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer treated with cystectomy: a meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 65, 350–357 (2014). This meta-analysis of 13 trials demonstrates a correlation between pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and improved long-term outcomes in MIBC.
pubmed: 23849998
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.049
FDA. Surrogate endpoint resources for drug and biologic development. Surrogate Endpoint Resources for Drug and Biologic Development. FDA https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/surrogate-endpoint-resources-drug-and-biologic-development (2018).
Korn, E. L., Sachs, M. C. & McShane, L. M. Statistical controversies in clinical research: assessing pathologic complete response as a trial-level surrogate end point for early-stage breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 27, 10–15 (2016). The authors explain the difference between a trial-level surrogate and individual-level surrogate and reanalyse previous meta-analyses evaluating pCR as a trial-level surrogate for EFS and OS in breast cancer, finding no evidence that pCR is a trial-level surrogate in breast cancer or that it should be used to discourage further drug development of a new agent based on negative results for pCR.
pubmed: 26489443
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv507
Korn, E. L. & Freidlin, B. Surrogate and intermediate endpoints in randomized trials: what’s the goal? Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 2239–2240 (2018).
pubmed: 29440189
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0183
Prentice, R. L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431–440 (1989).
pubmed: 2727467
doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080407
De Gruttola, V. G. et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Control. Clin. Trials 22, 485–502 (2001).
pubmed: 11578783
doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00153-2
Teramukai, S., Nishiyama, H., Matsui, Y., Ogawa, O. & Fukushima, M. Evaluation for surrogacy of end points by using data from observational studies: tumor downstaging for evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 139–143 (2006).
pubmed: 16397035
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1598
Molenberghs, G. et al. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Control. Clin. Trials 23, 607–625 (2002).
pubmed: 12505240
doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00236-2
Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G. & Buyse, M. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 167, 103–124 (2004). The authors describe a method of validating a binary end point as a surrogate end point for a time-to-event true end point, which has subsequently been used in several pooled analyses, including in Cortazar et al.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00293.x
Fleming, T. R. & Powers, J. H. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 31, 2973–2984 (2012).
pubmed: 22711298
pmcid: 3551627
doi: 10.1002/sim.5403
Broglio, K. R. et al. Association of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer with long-term outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2, 751–760 (2016).
pubmed: 26914222
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6113
Cortazar, P. et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384, 164–172 (2014).
pubmed: 24529560
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
Minckwitz, G. V. et al. Correlation of various pathologic complete response (pCR) definitions with long-term outcome and the prognostic value of pCR in various breast cancer subtypes: results from the German neoadjuvant meta-analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 1028–1028 (2011).
doi: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.1028
Spring, L. M. et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clin. Cancer Res. 26, 2838–2848 (2020).
pubmed: 32046998
pmcid: 7299787
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3492
Mieog, J. S., van der Hage, J. A. & van de Velde, C. J. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2007, CD005002 (2007).
pmcid: 7388837
FDA. BLA 125409Orig1s051 Summary Review. Drugs@FDA https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/125409Orig1s051SumR.pdf (2013).
Baselga, J. et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 109–119 (2012).
pubmed: 22149875
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113216
von Minckwitz, G. et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 122–131 (2017).
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703643
FDA. BLA 125409Orig1s113s118 letter. Supplement approval fulfillment of postmarketing requirement and commitment. FDA https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2017/125409Orig1s113s118ltr.pdf (2017).
Schmid, P. et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 810–821 (2020).
pubmed: 32101663
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
FDA. Combined FDA and Merck Sharp & Dohme Briefing Document for the February 9, 2021 Meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. FDA https://www.fda.gov/media/145654/download (2021).
FDA. Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) Meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 (transcript). FDA https://fda.report/media/149022/ODAC-20210209-Transcript_0.pdf (2021).
Prowell, T. M., Beaver, J. A. & Pazdur, R. Residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy — developing drugs for high-risk early breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 612–615 (2019). This FDA’s perspective article summarizes the history of pCR in breast cancer trials and highlights the advantages of an approach enrolling patients without pCR in trials evaluating adjuvant therapy.
pubmed: 30763188
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1900079
FDA. BLA 125409Orig1s051 cross discipline team leader review. FDA https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/125409Orig1s051CrossR.pdf (2013).
Berry, D. A. & Hudis, C. A. Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer as a basis for drug approval. JAMA Oncol. 1, 875–876 (2015).
pubmed: 26181139
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1293
Rosenblatt, R. et al. Pathologic downstaging is a surrogate marker for efficacy and increased survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 61, 1229–1238 (2012).
pubmed: 22189383
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.010
No authors listed. Neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 354, 533–540 (1999).
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02292-8
Apolo, A. B. et al. Eligibility and radiologic assessment in adjuvant clinical trials in bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 5, 1790–1798 (2019). The leaders of an FDA and National Cancer Institute workshop in 2017 summarized the workshop discussion in this paper, identifying areas where a uniform approach to eligibility and radiological assessment in adjuvant clinical trials in bladder was needed.
pubmed: 31670753
pmcid: 8211913
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4114
Galsky, M. D. et al. Treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer “unfit” for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2432–2438 (2011).
pubmed: 21555688
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.8433
Ge, P. et al. Oncological outcome of primary and secondary muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 8, 7543 (2018).
pubmed: 29765120
pmcid: 5954122
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26002-6
Pietzak, E. J. et al. Genomic differences between “primary” and “secondary” muscle-invasive bladder cancer as a basis for disparate outcomes to cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur. Urol. 75, 231–239 (2019).
pubmed: 30290956
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.002
Chang, S. S. et al. Treatment of non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. J. Urol. 198, 552–559 (2017).
pubmed: 28456635
pmcid: 5626446
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086
NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Bladder Cancer. NCCN https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/bladder.pdf (2021).
Kim, L. H. C. & Patel, M. I. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Transl. Androl. Urol. 9, 3056–3072 (2020).
pubmed: 33457279
pmcid: 7807319
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.38
Shinagare, A. B. et al. Metastatic pattern of bladder cancer: correlation with the characteristics of the primary tumor. AJR Am. J. Radiol. 196, 117–122 (2011).
Metwally, M. I. et al. The validity, reliability, and reviewer acceptance of VI-RADS in assessing muscle invasion by bladder cancer: a multicenter prospective study. Eur. Radiol. 31, 6949–6961 (2021).
pubmed: 33606105
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07765-5
Panebianco, V. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur. Urol. 74, 294–306 (2018).
pubmed: 29755006
pmcid: 6690492
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029
Witjes, J. A. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 64, 778–792 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.046
van der Pol C. B. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria: pretreatment staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. ACR https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69370/Narrative/ (2017).
Einerhand, S. M. H. et al. 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 30, 654–664 (2020).
pubmed: 32701719
Goodfellow, H. et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int. 114, 389–395 (2014).
pubmed: 24341486
Apolo, A. B. et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 3973–3978 (2010).
pubmed: 20679618
pmcid: 2940395
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.7052
Dason, S. et al. Utility of routine preoperative 18f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computerized tomography in identifying pathological lymph node metastases at radical cystectomy. J. Urol. 204, 254–259 (2020).
pubmed: 32134343
pmcid: 8477436
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001006
Al-Daghmin, A. et al. External validation of preoperative and postoperative nomograms for prediction of cancer-specific survival, overall survival and recurrence after robot-assisted radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int. 114, 253–260 (2014).
pubmed: 24119175
doi: 10.1111/bju.12484
Galsky, M. D. et al. Web-based tool to facilitate shared decision making with regard to neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 1, 1–12 (2017).
pubmed: 30657403
Cahn, D. et al. MP58-12 clinical destiny of indeterminate pulmonary nodules in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J. Urol. 197, e776–e777 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1807
Galsky, M. D. et al. Comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for bladder cancer with clinical evidence of regional lymph node involvement. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 2627–2635 (2016).
pubmed: 27269939
pmcid: 5012691
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.5033
Galsky, M. D. et al. Comparative effectiveness of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer 121, 2586–2593 (2015).
pubmed: 25872978
doi: 10.1002/cncr.29387
Peyton, C. C. et al. Downstaging and survival outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens among patients treated with cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1535–1542 (2018).
pubmed: 30178038
pmcid: 6248089
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3542
Flaig, T. W. et al. SWOG S1314: a randomized phase II study of co-expression extrapolation (COXEN) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized, muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 4506 (2019).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4506
Koshkin, V. S. et al. Feasibility of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients with diminished renal function. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 16, e879–e892 (2018).
pubmed: 29576445
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.02.002
Dash, A. et al. A role for neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 113, 2471–2477 (2008).
pubmed: 18823036
doi: 10.1002/cncr.23848
Osterman, C. K. et al. Efficacy of split schedule versus conventional schedule neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Oncologist 24, 688–690 (2019).
pubmed: 30728277
pmcid: 6516116
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0561
Powles, T. et al. Clinical efficacy and biomarker analysis of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in operable urothelial carcinoma in the ABACUS trial. Nat. Med. 25, 1706–1714 (2019).
pubmed: 31686036
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0628-7
Necchi, A. et al. Pembrolizumab as neoadjuvant therapy before radical cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder carcinoma (PURE-01): an open-label, single-arm, phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 3353–3360 (2018).
pubmed: 30343614
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01148
Bajorin, D. F. et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 2102–2114 (2021).
pubmed: 34077643
pmcid: 8215888
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034442
Becker, R. E. N. et al. Clinical restaging and tumor sequencing are inaccurate indicators of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 79, 364–371 (2021).
pubmed: 32814637
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.016
Herr, H., Lee, C., Chang, S. & Lerner, S. Standardization of radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer: a collaborative group report. J. Urol. 171, 1823–1828 (2004).
pubmed: 15076285
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000120289.78049.0e
Herr, H. W. Outcome of patients who refuse cystectomy after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 54, 126–132 (2008).
pubmed: 18248875
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.031
Robins, D. et al. Outcomes following clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients refusing radical cystectomy. Urology 111, 116–121 (2018).
pubmed: 29032239
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.003
Sternberg, C. N. et al. Can patient selection for bladder preservation be based on response to chemotherapy? Cancer 97, 1644–1652 (2003).
pubmed: 12655521
doi: 10.1002/cncr.11232
van der Pol, C. B. et al. Update on multiparametric MRI of urinary bladder cancer. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 48, 882–896 (2018).
pubmed: 30221801
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26294
Necchi, A. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a noninvasive assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: preliminary findings from the PURE-01 study. Eur. Urol. 77, 636–643 (2020).
pubmed: 31882281
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.016
Choueiri, T. K. et al. Neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin with pegfilgrastim support in muscle-invasive urothelial cancer: pathologic, radiologic, and biomarker correlates. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1889–1894 (2014).
pubmed: 24821883
pmcid: 7057274
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.4785
Choi, S. J. et al. Urothelial phase CT for assessment of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur. J. Radiol. 126, 108902 (2020).
pubmed: 32126443
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108902
Metser, U. et al. Detection of urothelial tumors: comparison of urothelial phase with excretory phase CT urography — a prospective study. Radiology 264, 110–118 (2012).
pubmed: 22495683
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111623
Zheng, J. et al. Development of a noninvasive tool to preoperatively evaluate the muscular invasiveness of bladder cancer using a radiomics approach. Cancer 125, 4388–4398 (2019).
pubmed: 31469418
doi: 10.1002/cncr.32490
Avulova, S. & Chang, S. S. Role and indications of organ-sparing “radical” cystectomy: the importance of careful patient selection and counseling. Urol. Clin. North Am. 45, 199–214 (2018).
pubmed: 29650136
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.12.005
Chang, S. S., Cole, E., Cookson, M. S., Peterson, M. & Smith, J. A. Jr. Preservation of the anterior vaginal wall during female radical cystectomy with orthotopic urinary diversion: technique and results. J. Urol. 168, 1442–1445 (2002).
pubmed: 12352414
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64470-9
Gschwend, J. E. et al. Extended versus limited lymph node dissection in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy: survival results from a prospective, randomized trial. Eur. Urol. 75, 604–611 (2019).
pubmed: 30337060
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.047
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01224665 (2021).
Sonpavde, G. et al. Quality of pathologic response and surgery correlate with survival for patients with completely resected bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 115, 4104–4109 (2009).
pubmed: 19517476
doi: 10.1002/cncr.24466
Splinter, T. A. et al. The prognostic value of the pathological response to combination chemotherapy before cystectomy in patients with invasive bladder cancer. European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer–Genitourinary Group. J. Urol. 147, 606–608 (1992).
pubmed: 1538438
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37318-4
Dash, A. et al. A role for neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a retrospective experience. Cancer 113, 2471–2477 (2008).
pubmed: 18823036
doi: 10.1002/cncr.23848
Gress D. M. Principles of cancer staging. In AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th Edn (eds Amin, M. B. et al.) (Springer, 2021).
Martini, A. et al. Tumor downstaging as an intermediate endpoint to assess the activity of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer 125, 3155–3163 (2019).
pubmed: 31150110
doi: 10.1002/cncr.32169
FDA. Pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. Guidance document: pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. FDA https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/pathologic-complete-response-neoadjuvant-treatment-high-risk-early-stage-breast-cancer-use-endpoint (2020). This guidance is intended to assist investigators in designing trials with the use of pCR as an early end point to support accelerated approval, and discusses accepted definitions of pCR in breast cancer, describes trial designs and patient populations in which pCR may be accepted as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, and provides guidance on potential trial designs to verify clinical benefit for traditional approval.
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03661320 (2021).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03732677 (2021).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03924856 (2021).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03924895 (2021).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04209114 (2021).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04700124 (2021).