Second-line single-agent versus doublet chemotherapy as salvage therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:89
|
作者
Raggi, D. [1 ]
Miceli, R. [1 ]
Sonpavde, G. [2 ]
Giannatempo, P. [1 ]
Mariani, L. [1 ]
Galsky, M. D. [3 ]
Bellmunt, J. [4 ,5 ]
Necchi, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, I-20133 Milan, Italy
[2] UAB, Ctr Comprehens Canc, Birmingham, AL USA
[3] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Tisch Canc Inst, New York, NY 10029 USA
[4] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA USA
关键词
urothelial carcinoma; chemotherapy; salvage therapy; single-agent chemotherapy; combination chemotherapy; TRANSITIONAL-CELL CARCINOMA; PHASE-II TRIAL; WEEKLY PACLITAXEL; PRETREATED PATIENTS; ORAL CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; GEMCITABINE; CISPLATIN; BLADDER; CARBOPLATIN; IFOSFAMIDE;
D O I
10.1093/annonc/mdv509
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The efficacy and safety of a combination of chemotherapeutic agent compared with single-agent chemotherapy in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) are unclear. We aimed to study the survival impact of single-agent compared with doublet chemotherapy as second-line chemotherapy of advanced UC. Literature was searched for studies including single-agent or doublet chemotherapy in the second-line setting after platinum-based chemotherapy. Random-effects models were used to pool trial-level data according to treatment arm, including median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) probability, and grade 3-4 toxicity. Univariable and multivariable analyses, including sensitivity analyses, were carried out, adjusting for the percent of patients with ECOG performance status >= 1 and hepatic metastases. Forty-six arms of trials including 1910 patients were selected: 22 arms with single agent (n = 1202) and 24 arms with doublets (n = 708). The pooled ORR with single agents was 14.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1-17.9] versus 31.9% [95% CI 27.3-36.9] with doublet chemotherapy. Pooled median PFS was 2.69 and 4.05 months, respectively. The pooled median OS was 6.98 and 8.50 months, respectively. Multivariably, the odds ratio for ORR and the pooled median difference of PFS were statistically significant (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002) whereas the median difference in OS was not (P = 0.284). When including single-agent vinflunine or taxanes only, differences were significant only for ORR (P < 0.001) favoring doublet chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in grade 3-4 toxicity were seen between the two groups. Despite significant improvements in ORR and PFS, doublet regimens did not extend OS compared with single agents for the second-line chemotherapy of UC. Prospective trials are necessary to elucidate the role of combination chemotherapy, with or without targeted agents, in the salvage setting. Currently, improvements in this field should be pursued considering single-agent chemotherapy as the foundation for new more active combinations.
引用
收藏
页码:49 / 61
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single agent versus doublet chemotherapy as second-line therapy of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC): a meta-analysis
    Raggi, D.
    Miceli, R.
    Sonpavde, G.
    Giannatempo, P.
    Nicolai, N.
    Salvioni, R.
    Procopio, G.
    De Braud, F.
    Mariani, L.
    Necchi, A.
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2015, 26 : 55 - 55
  • [2] Single agent versus doublet chemotherapy as second-line therapy of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC): A meta-analysis.
    Raggi, Daniele
    Miceli, Rosalba
    Sonpavde, Guru
    Giannatempo, Patrizia
    Nicolai, Nicola
    Naik, Gurudatta
    Salvioni, Roberto
    Procopio, Giuseppe
    De Braud, Filippo G.
    Mariani, Luigi
    Necchi, Andrea
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (15)
  • [3] Updated meta-analysis (MA) of salvage therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC): Comparing outcomes of immunotherapy (IT) versus single agent and doublet chemotherapy (CT).
    Necchi, Andrea
    Raggi, Daniele
    Sonpavde, Guru
    Giannatempo, Patrizia
    Mariani, Luigi
    Galsky, Matt D.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 35 (06)
  • [4] Comprehensive Curative Effect of Targeting PD-1 or Traditional Single-Agent Chemotherapy in Second-Line Therapy for Terminal or Metastatic Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Wang, Yidan
    Yang, Qiuxing
    Liu, Jia
    Shen, Xiying
    Tai, Guomei
    Gu, Hongmei
    JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2022, 2022
  • [5] Efficacy and safety of doublet versus single agent as salvage treatment for metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Tengteng
    Wang, Ruoming
    Liu, Yunbin
    Huang, Jisheng
    Yang, Zhen
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2016, 32 (11) : 1883 - 1889
  • [6] Combination chemotherapy versus single-agent therapy as first- and second-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer: A prospective randomized trial
    Joensuu, H
    Holli, K
    Heikkinen, M
    Suonio, E
    Aro, AR
    Hietanen, P
    Huovinen, R
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1998, 16 (12) : 3720 - 3730
  • [8] Doublet Versus Single Agent as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials
    Zhang, Yong
    Ma, Bing
    Huang, Xiao-Tian
    Li, Yan-Song
    Wang, Yu
    Liu, Zhou-Lu
    MEDICINE, 2016, 95 (08)
  • [9] Second-line single-agent chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review
    Puglisi, Fabio
    Rea, Daniel
    Kroes, Michel A.
    Pronzato, Paolo
    CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS, 2016, 43 : 36 - 49
  • [10] Meta-Analysis of Single-Agent Chemotherapy Compared With Combination Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
    Di Maio, Massimo
    Chiodini, Paolo
    Georgoulias, Vassilis
    Hatzidaki, Dora
    Takeda, Koji
    Wachters, Floris M.
    Gebbia, Vittorio
    Smit, Egbert F.
    Morabito, Alessandro
    Gallo, Ciro
    Perrone, Francesco
    Gridelli, Cesare
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2009, 27 (11) : 1836 - 1843