Route of Administration for UGN-101 and Impact on Oncological and Safety Outcomes.

Chemoablation Endoscopic ablation Mitomycin UGN-101 Upper tract 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:
30 May 2023
Historique:
received: 09 02 2023
revised: 19 04 2023
accepted: 09 05 2023
medline: 2 6 2023
pubmed: 2 6 2023
entrez: 1 6 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

UGN-101 can be used for chemoablation of low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The gel can be administered via a retrograde route through a ureteral catheter or an antegrade route via a nephrostomy tube. To report outcomes of UGN-101 by route of administration. We performed a retrospective review of 132 patients from 15 institutions who were treated with UGN-101 for low-grade UTUC via retrograde versus antegrade administration. Survival outcomes are reported per patient. Treatment, complications, and recurrence outcomes are reported per renal unit. Statistical analysis was performed for primary endpoints of oncological response and ureteral stricture occurrence. A total of 136 renal units were evaluated, comprising 78 retrograde and 58 antegrade instillations. Median follow-up was 7.4 mo. There were 120 cases (91%) of biopsy-proven low-grade UTUC. Tumors were in the renal pelvis alone in 89 cases (65%), in the ureter alone in 12 cases (9%), and in both in 35 cases (26%). Seventy-six patients (56%) had residual disease before UGN-101 treatment. Chemoablation with UGN-101 was used in 50/78 (64%) retrograde cases and 26/58 (45%) antegrade cases. A complete response according to inspection and cytology was achieved in 31 (48%) retrograde and 30 (60%) antegrade renal units (p = 0.1). Clavien grade 3 ureteral stricture occurred in 21 retrograde cases (32%) and only six (12%) antegrade cases (p < 0.01). Limitations include treatment bias, as patients in the antegrade group were more likely to undergo endoscopic mechanical ablation before UGN-101 instillation. These preliminary results show a significantly lower rate of stricture occurrence with antegrade administration of UGN-101, with no apparent impact on oncological efficacy. We compared results for two different delivery routes for the drug UGN-101 for treatment of cancer in the upper urinary tract. For the antegrade route, a tube is inserted through the skin into the kidney. For the retrograde route, a catheter is inserted past the bladder into the upper urinary tract. Our results show a lower rate of narrowing of the ureter (the tube draining urine from the kidney into the bladder) using the antegrade route, with no difference in cancer control.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
UGN-101 can be used for chemoablation of low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The gel can be administered via a retrograde route through a ureteral catheter or an antegrade route via a nephrostomy tube.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To report outcomes of UGN-101 by route of administration.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of 132 patients from 15 institutions who were treated with UGN-101 for low-grade UTUC via retrograde versus antegrade administration.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Survival outcomes are reported per patient. Treatment, complications, and recurrence outcomes are reported per renal unit. Statistical analysis was performed for primary endpoints of oncological response and ureteral stricture occurrence.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
A total of 136 renal units were evaluated, comprising 78 retrograde and 58 antegrade instillations. Median follow-up was 7.4 mo. There were 120 cases (91%) of biopsy-proven low-grade UTUC. Tumors were in the renal pelvis alone in 89 cases (65%), in the ureter alone in 12 cases (9%), and in both in 35 cases (26%). Seventy-six patients (56%) had residual disease before UGN-101 treatment. Chemoablation with UGN-101 was used in 50/78 (64%) retrograde cases and 26/58 (45%) antegrade cases. A complete response according to inspection and cytology was achieved in 31 (48%) retrograde and 30 (60%) antegrade renal units (p = 0.1). Clavien grade 3 ureteral stricture occurred in 21 retrograde cases (32%) and only six (12%) antegrade cases (p < 0.01). Limitations include treatment bias, as patients in the antegrade group were more likely to undergo endoscopic mechanical ablation before UGN-101 instillation.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
These preliminary results show a significantly lower rate of stricture occurrence with antegrade administration of UGN-101, with no apparent impact on oncological efficacy.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
We compared results for two different delivery routes for the drug UGN-101 for treatment of cancer in the upper urinary tract. For the antegrade route, a tube is inserted through the skin into the kidney. For the retrograde route, a catheter is inserted past the bladder into the upper urinary tract. Our results show a lower rate of narrowing of the ureter (the tube draining urine from the kidney into the bladder) using the antegrade route, with no difference in cancer control.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37263827
pii: S2405-4569(23)00123-2
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.05.012
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Jennifer Linehan (J)

Providence Specialty Medical Group, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

Josh Gottlieb (J)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: jgottlie55@gmail.com.

Solomon L Woldu (SL)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Craig Labbate (C)

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Kyle Rose (K)

Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.

Wade Sexton (W)

Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.

Hristos Kaimakliotis (H)

Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Joseph Jacob (J)

State University of New York Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Rian Dickstein (R)

University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD, USA; Chesapeake Urology, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Alan Nieder (A)

Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, USA.

Marc Bjurlin (M)

University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Mitchell Humphreys (M)

Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Saum Ghodoussipor (S)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.

Marcus Quek (M)

Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL, USA.

Michael O'Donnell (M)

University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Brian H Eisner (BH)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Adam S Feldman (AS)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Surena F Matin (SF)

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Yair Lotan (Y)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Katie S Murray (KS)

NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Classifications MeSH