Practice patterns and outcomes of conventional versus split-dose cisplatin in neoadjuvant ddMVAC in bladder cancer

膀胱癌新辅助ddMVAC方案中常规剂量与分次剂量顺铂的实践模式和疗效

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The practice patterns and efficacy of ddMVAC administered with split-dose cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains largely undefined. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the application and overall survival (OS) in patients with MIBC receiving conventional ddMVAC versus split-dosed ddMVAC and to examine the predictive variables in those receiving split-dosed cisplatin. METHODS: Using data from the CancerLinQ Discovery database, we identified 626 patients with bladder cancer between 2000-2023 with receipt of ddMVAC. The primary outcome was OS by receipt of split-dose versus conventional ddMVAC. A secondary outcome of interest assessed predictors of receipt of split-dose ddMVAC. Use of split-dose versus conventional ddMVAC was compared using chi-square tests. Univariate and multivariable OS were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Predictors of receipt of split dose versus conventional ddMVAC were estimated using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Most patients with MIBC are treated with standard dose ddMVAC. In multivariate analysis, no statistically significant difference in OS was observed between split-dose and conventional ddMVAC (HR 1.3, CI 0.78-2.18, p = 0.316). We demonstrate a notable decline in the use of split-dose cisplatin over time. Baseline GFR and performance status were not predictors of split-dosing in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with MIBC received conventional ddMVAC with decreasing frequency of split-dose cisplatin use over time. We did not observe a difference in OS between patients with MIBC who received standard versus split-dose cisplatin.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。