Feasibility and efficacy of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer in older patients: A retrospective French GETUG study.

B Benjamin Combe (Tours University Hospital, Tours, France) C Clement Dumont (Hopital Saint Louis, Paris, France) G Guilhem Roubaud (Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France) D Damien Pouessel (Medical Oncology Department, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France) E Elsa Lafitte (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) M Manon De Vries (Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Angers, France) B Brigitte Laguerre (Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Eugene—Marquis, Rennes, France) H Helen Jane Boyle (Centre Leon Bérard, Lyon, France) A Aymeric Guilbert (Department of Medical Oncology, HEGP, AP-PH, Paris, France) B Bérengère Narciso (Department of Medical Oncology, CHU Bretonneau Centre, Tours University, Tours, France) H Hakim Mahammedi (Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France) D Delphine Borchiellini (Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France) B Baptiste Abbar (Oncology (B.A.), AP-HP.) M Marine Gross-Goupil (University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France) M Mathieu Laramas (University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France) F Franck Bruyere (CHRU Tours, Tours, France) J Julie Biogeau (Department of Geriatrics, CHU Bretonneau Centre, Tours University, Tours, France) M Mathilde Cancel (Department of Medical Oncology, CHU Tours, Tours, France)

Abstract

735 Background: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy is the gold standard in localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), for fit patients. However, NAC is less prescribed in older patients, mainly due to safety concerns. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of NAC for patients aged ≥ 75. Methods: We retrospectively included older patients, from 14 French GETUG centers. All patients had received at least one cycle of cisplatin-based NAC for localized MIBC, between 2010 and 2022. Primary outcome was NAC feasibility evaluated as the rate of patients that underwent optimal treatment, defined as at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy followed with local treatment (surgery or chemoradiotherapy). Secondary outcomes were NAC safety and efficacy. Results: 156 pts were included. Median age was 77 (from 75 to 96), with 20% aged ≥ 80. Patients were in good general condition: 54% were PS 0, with a median serum albumin level of 39 g/L, and 86% had a creatinine clearance ≥ 60 ml/min. 108 (69%) had a cT2N0 MIBC. 75 (48%) received dose dense MVAC (ddMVAC), 80 (51%) received gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) and one patient received MVAC. 96 (62%) received an optimal treatment. 50 patients (32%) prematurely stopped NAC, due to death (3 pts, 2 from unknown causes), progressive disease (4), infection (3), toxicity (34 patients) mainly renal and hematological ones. Among them, 38 (76%) underwent local treatment. Among the 112 patients that underwent cystectomy, pathological complete response (pCR) was significantly more frequent when they received ≥ 4 cycles (36/78 = 46% versus 5/34 = 15%, p = 0.002). Median follow up from diagnosis was 28 months, with 97 patients (62%) that were still alive at the end of follow-up. Median disease-free survival was 3 years and 3 months. 2-years overall survival (OS) was 72%; 5-years OS was 56%. Conclusions: These data suggest that NAC for MIBC is feasible in selected older patients, even if toxicity was the main reason for cisplatin-based regimen discontinuation. Older patients who received optimal treatment were more often in pCR. OS in the this cohort of older patients was very similar to the results published in younger patients.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 735-735
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (18)

B

Benjamin Combe

Tours University Hospital, Tours, France

C

Clement Dumont

Hopital Saint Louis, Paris, France

G

Guilhem Roubaud

Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France

D

Damien Pouessel

Medical Oncology Department, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France

E

Elsa Lafitte

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

M

Manon De Vries

Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Angers, France

B

Brigitte Laguerre

Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Eugene—Marquis, Rennes, France

H

Helen Jane Boyle

Centre Leon Bérard, Lyon, France

A

Aymeric Guilbert

Department of Medical Oncology, HEGP, AP-PH, Paris, France

B

Bérengère Narciso

Department of Medical Oncology, CHU Bretonneau Centre, Tours University, Tours, France

H

Hakim Mahammedi

Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France

D

Delphine Borchiellini

Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France

B

Baptiste Abbar

Oncology (B.A.), AP-HP.

M

Marine Gross-Goupil

University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

M

Mathieu Laramas

University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

F

Franck Bruyere

CHRU Tours, Tours, France

J

Julie Biogeau

Department of Geriatrics, CHU Bretonneau Centre, Tours University, Tours, France

M

Mathilde Cancel

Department of Medical Oncology, CHU Tours, Tours, France