Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM)
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma : A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM). / Holmsten, Karin; Jensen, Niels Viggo; Mouritsen, Lene Sonne; Jonsson, Erika; Mellnert, Camilla; Agerbæk, Mads; Nilsson, Cecilia; Moe, Mette; Carus, Andreas; Öfverholm, Elisabeth; Lahdenperä, Outi; Brandberg, Yvonne; Johansson, Hemming; Hellström, Mats; Maase, Hans von der; Pappot, Helle; Ullén, Anders.
I: European Journal of Cancer, Bind 127, 2020, s. 173-182.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma
T2 - A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM)
AU - Holmsten, Karin
AU - Jensen, Niels Viggo
AU - Mouritsen, Lene Sonne
AU - Jonsson, Erika
AU - Mellnert, Camilla
AU - Agerbæk, Mads
AU - Nilsson, Cecilia
AU - Moe, Mette
AU - Carus, Andreas
AU - Öfverholm, Elisabeth
AU - Lahdenperä, Outi
AU - Brandberg, Yvonne
AU - Johansson, Hemming
AU - Hellström, Mats
AU - Maase, Hans von der
AU - Pappot, Helle
AU - Ullén, Anders
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Background: The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Patients and methods: Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30–60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m2 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days) or the control arm (carboplatin AUC 4.5 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%). Conclusions: The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02665039.
AB - Background: The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Patients and methods: Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30–60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m2 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days) or the control arm (carboplatin AUC 4.5 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%). Conclusions: The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02665039.
KW - Bladder cancer
KW - Carboplatin/gemcitabine
KW - Cisplatin-unfit
KW - Renal impairment
KW - Urothelial carcinoma
KW - Vinflunine
KW - Vinflunine/gemcitabine
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.033
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.033
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 31648851
AN - SCOPUS:85073988607
VL - 127
SP - 173
EP - 182
JO - European Journal of Cancer, Supplement
JF - European Journal of Cancer, Supplement
SN - 0959-8049
ER -
ID: 253190347