13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vinflunine in the treatment of bladder cancer

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vinflunine (VFL) is a third-generation bifluorinated semi-synthetic vinca alkaloid obtained by superacidic chemistry from its parent compound, vinorelbine. As with the other vinca alkaloids, the main antineoplastic effects of VFL arise from its interaction with tubulin, the major component of microtubules in mitotic spindles. In contrast to other vinca alkaloids, VFL shows some distinctive properties in terms of tubulin binding, possibly explaining its superior antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo compared with vinorelbine as well as its excellent safety profile. In transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), two single-agent phase II trials were performed testing VFL in platinum-pretreated patients, showing moderate response rates and promising disease control rates. Therefore, the first phase III trial in modern times for second-line TCC of the urothelium was designed in order to further investigate the activity of VFL. First results were presented at the 2008 ASCO conference. VFL appears to be a possible treatment option for patients with TCC progressing after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 125

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study.

          Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively), and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term survival in metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma and prognostic factors predicting outcome of therapy.

             P Dodd,  M Fazzari,  H Scher (1999)
            The variation in reported survival of patients with metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) treated with systemic chemotherapy may be a consequence of pretreatment patient characteristics. We hypothesized that a prognostic factor-based model of survival among patients treated with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin chemotherapy could account for such differences and help guide clinical trial design and interpretation. A database of 203 patients with unresectable or metastatic TCC was retrospectively subjected to a multivariate regression analysis to determine which patient characteristics had independent prognostic significance for survival. Patients were assigned to three risk categories depending on the number of unfavorable characteristics. Patient selection in phase II studies was addressed by developing a table of expected median survival for patient cohorts that had varying proportions of patients from the three risk categories. Two factors had independent prognosis: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) less than 80% and visceral (lung, liver, or bone) metastasis. Median survival times for patients who had zero, one, or two risk factors were 33, 13.4, and 9.3 months, respectively (P =.0001). The median survival time of patient cohorts could vary from 9 to 26 months simply by altering the proportion of patients from different risk categories. The presence of baseline KPS less than 80% or visceral metastasis has an impact on survival. Reporting the proportion of patients with zero, one, and two risk factors will facilitate understanding of the relevance of the median survival in phase II trials. Phase III trials should stratify patients according to the number of risk factors to avoid imbalance in treatment arms.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration.

                (2005)
              To evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer. : We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of updated individual patient data from all available randomised controlled trials comparing local treatment plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus the same local treatment alone. Analyses were based on 491 patients from six trials, representing 90% of all patients randomised in cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy trials and 66% of patients from all eligible trials. The power of this meta-analysis is clearly limited. The overall hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.96, p = 0.019) suggests a 25% relative reduction in the risk of death for chemotherapy compared to that on control. Cox regression suggests that small imbalances in patient characteristics do not bias the results in favour of chemotherapy. However, the impact of trials that stopped early, of patients not receiving allocated treatments or not receiving salvage chemotherapy is less clear. This IPD meta-analysis provides the best evidence currently available on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. However, at present there is insufficient evidence on which to reliably base treatment decisions. These results highlight the urgent need for further research into the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The results of appropriately sized randomised trials, such as the ongoing EORTC-30994 trial are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                December 2008
                December 2008
                : 4
                : 6
                : 1243-1253
                Affiliations
                3rd Medical Department – Center for Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Franz Josef-Spital der Stadt Wien, and Ludwig Boltzmann-Institute for Applied Cancer Research Vienna (LBI-ACR VIEnna), Cluster Translational Oncology, Kaiser Franz Josef-Spital der Stadt Wien, and Applied Cancer Research – Institution for Translational Research Vienna (ACR-ITR VIEnna)/CEADDP, Vienna, Austria
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Mark Bachner, 3rd Medical Department – Center for Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Franz Josef-Spital der Stadt Wien, Kundratstraße 3, A-1100 Vienna, Austria, Tel +43 1 60191 2308, Fax +43 1 60191 2309, Email mark.bachner@ 123456wienkav.at
                Article
                tcrm-4-1243
                2643105
                19337431
                © 2008 Dove Medical Press Limited. All rights reserved
                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article