Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 95–105 | Cite as

SIU-ICUD recommendations on bladder cancer: systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer

  • Axel S. Merseburger
  • Andrea B. Apolo
  • Simon Chowdhury
  • Noah M. Hahn
  • Matthew D. Galsky
  • Matthew I. Milowsky
  • Daniel Petrylak
  • Tom Powles
  • David I. Quinn
  • Jonathan E. Rosenberg
  • Arlene Siefker-Radtke
  • Guru Sonpavde
  • Cora N. SternbergEmail author
Topic Paper

Abstract

The SIU (Société Internationale d’Urologie)–ICUD (International Consultation on Urologic Diseases) working group on systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer has summarized the most recent findings on the aforementioned topic and came to conclusions and recommendations according to the evidence published. In Europe and the United States, treatment for metastatic UC has changed a great deal recently, mainly involving a move from chemotherapy to immune checkpoint blockers. This is particularly true in platinum-refractory disease, where supportive randomized data exist. Five checkpoint blockers have been approved in this setting by the FDA: avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab have been approved in Europe.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Urothelial cancer Chemotherapy immunotherapy Checkpoint inhibitors 

Notes

Author contributions

All authors contribute to protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis and manuscript writing/editing

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Axel S. Merseburger: Clinical trials: Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, BMS, Merck. Speaker office: Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Ferring, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, TEVA. Consulting: GBA, TEVA, UEG, Janssen, BMS, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Takeda. Andrea B. Apolo: No disclosures. Simon Chowdhury: No disclosures. Noah M. Hahn: Consulting—Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech, Pieris, Seattle Genetics, Ferring, TARIS, Rexahn, Incyte, Inovio. Research to Institution—Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech, Pieris, Seattle Genetics, Inovio, Acerta. Honoraria—Bladder Cancer Academy. Matthew D. Galsky: Research funding: Merck, Genentech, BMS, Astra-Zeneca. Advisory Board: Merck, Genentech, BMS, Astra-Zeneca. Matthew I. Milowsky: No disclosures. Daniel Petrylak: No disclosures. Tom Powles: No disclosures. David I. Quinn: No disclosures. Jonathan E. Rosenberg: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck, Illumina. Honoraria: UpToDate, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Medscape, Vindico, Peerview, Chugai Pharma. Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Merck, Agensys, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD SErono, Seattle Genetics, Bayer, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, BioClin Therapeutics, QED Therapeutics. Research Funding to Institution from Genentech, Oncogenex, Agensys, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Viralytics, Genentech/Roche, Incyte. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property to Institution: Predictor of platinum sensitivity. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Arlene Siefker-Radtke: Scientific advisor: Merck, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Bioclin. Guru Sonpavde: Consultant for Bayer, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Amgen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Genentech, EMD Serono, Astellas; Research support to institution from Sanofi, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck, BMS, Pfizer; Author for Uptodate; Speaker fees from Clinical Care Options, Physicians Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice (RTP), Onclive. Cora N. Sternberg: Consultant for BMS, Merck, Clovis. Sanofi, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Author for Uptodate, Speaker fees, Physicians Education Resource (PER).

References

  1. 1.
    Sternberg CN, Yagoda A, Scher HI et al (1989) Methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin for advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Efficacy and patterns of response and relapse. Cancer 64:2448–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loehrer PJ Sr, Einhorn LH, Elson PJ et al (1992) A randomized comparison of cisplatin alone or in combination with methotrexate, vinblastine, and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a cooperative group study. J Clin Oncol 10:1066–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT et al (2000) Gemcitabine and cisplatin vs. methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study. J Clin Oncol 18:3068–3077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sternberg CN, de Mulder PH, Schornagel JH et al (2001) Randomized phase III trial of high-dose-intensity methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) chemotherapy and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor vs. classic MVAC in advanced urothelial tract tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocol no. 30924. J Clin Oncol 19:2638–2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McConkey DCW, Shen Y, Lee I, Porten S, Matin S, Kamat A, Corn P, Millikan R, Dinney C, Czerniak B, Siefker-Radtke A (2016) A prognostic gene expression signature in the molecular classification of chemotherapy-naive urothelial cancer is predictive of clinical outcomes from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a phase 2 trial of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin with bevacizumab in urothelial cancer. Eur Eurol 69:855–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choueiri TK, Jacobus S, Bellmunt J et al (2014) Neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin with pegfilgrastim support in muscle-invasive urothelial cancer: pathologic, radiologic, and biomarker correlates. J Clin Oncol 32:1889–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plimack ER, Hoffman-Censits JH, Viterbo R et al (2014) Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin is safe, effective, and efficient neoadjuvant treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study with molecular correlates of response and toxicity. J Clin Oncol 32:1895–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellmunt J, von der Maase H, Mead GM et al (2012) Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987. J Clin Oncol 30:1107–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dash A, Galsky MD, Vickers AJ et al (2006) Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 107:506–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Mead G et al (2012) Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: EORTC study 30986. J Clin Oncol 30:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hainsworth JD, Meluch AA, Litchy S et al (2005) Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Cancer 103:2298–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oing C, Rink M, Oechsle K et al (2016) Second line chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. vinflunine and beyond: a comprehensive review of the current literature. J Urol 195:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Powles T, Duran I, van der Heijden MS et al (2018) Atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ et al (2017) Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 376:1015–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE et al (2017) Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 389:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Donnel P, Grivas P, et al. (2017) Biomarker findings and mature clinical results from KEYNOTE-052: First-line pembrolizumab (pembro) in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer (UC). 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting Genitourinary (nonprostate) cancer oral abstract session: June 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balar AV, Castellano D, O’Donnell PH et al (2017) First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 18:1483–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang R, Shirai K (2016) Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a patient with advanced melanoma on haemodialysis. BMJ Case Rep 2016:bcr2016216426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cavalcante L, Amin A, Lutzky J (2015) Ipilimumab was safe and effective in two patients with metastatic melanoma and end-stage renal disease. Cancer Manag Res 7:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ et al (2017) Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 376:1015–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Powles T, Loriot Y, Duran I, et al. (2017) IMvigor211: A phase III randomized study examining atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy for platinum-treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. EAS Congress:abstrGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A et al (2017) Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 18:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Apolo AB, Infante JR, Balmanoukian A et al (2017) Avelumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, in patients with refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results from a multicenter, Phase Ib Study. J Clin Oncol 35:2117–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Powles T, O’Donnell PH, Massard C et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: updated results from a phase 1/2 open-label study. JAMA Oncol 3:e172411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T et al (2016) Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 387:1909–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joaquim Bellmunt RDW, Vaughn David J, Fradet Yves, Lee Jae-Lyun, Fong Lawrence, Vogelzang Nicholas J, Climent Miguel A, Petrylak Daniel Peter, Choueiri Toni K, Necchi Andrea, Gerritsen Winald, Gurney Howard, Quinn David I, Culine Stephane, Sternberg Cora N, Nam Kijoeng, Frenkl Tara L, Perini Rodolfo F, Bajori Dean F (2018) Two-year follow-up from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 trial of pembrolizumab (pembro) vs. investigator’s choice (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine) in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer (UC). ASCO J Clin Oncol 36(6_suppl):410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Powles T, Smith K, Stenzl A et al (2017) Immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic urothelial cancer. Eur Urol 72:477–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bellmunt J, Theodore C, Demkov T et al (2009) Phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone after a platinum-containing regimen in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. J Clin Oncol 27:4454–4461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garcia-Donas J, Font A, Perez-Valderrama B et al (2017) Maintenance therapy with vinflunine plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with a response after first-line chemotherapy (MAJA; SOGUG 2011/02): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 18:672–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCaffrey JA, Hilton S, Mazumdar M et al (1997) Phase II trial of docetaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 15:1853–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaughn DJ, Broome CM, Hussain M et al (2002) Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:937–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loriot Y DI, Ravaud A, et al. (2017) Phase III randomized study examining atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy for platinum-treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. EACR-AACR-SIC 2nd Special ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Albers P, Park SI, Niegisch G et al (2011) Randomized phase III trial of 2nd line gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced bladder cancer: short-term vs. prolonged treatment [German Association of Urological Oncology (AUO) trial AB 20/99]. Ann Oncol 22:288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vaishampayan UN, Faulkner JR, Small EJ et al (2005) Phase II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel in cisplatin-pretreated advanced transitional cell carcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer 104:1627–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pagliaro LC, Millikan RE, Tu SM et al (2002) Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and ifosfamide as weekly therapy: a feasibility and phase II study of salvage treatment for advanced transitional-cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 20:2965–2970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dreicer R, Li H, Cooney MM et al (2008) Phase 2 trial of pemetrexed disodium and gemcitabine in advanced urothelial cancer (E4802): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer 112:2671–2675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    von der Maase H, Lehmann J, Gravis G et al (2006) A phase II trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine in locally advanced and/or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Ann Oncol 17:1533–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kattan J, Culine S, Theodore C et al (1993) Second-line M-VAC therapy in patients previously treated with the M-VAC regimen for metastatic urothelial cancer. Ann Oncol 4:793–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee JH, Kang SG, Kim ST et al (2014) Modified MVAC as a second-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma after failure of gemcitabine and cisplatin treatment. Cancer Res Treat 46:172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gondo T, Ohori M, Hamada R et al (2011) The efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus cisplatin regimen for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma after failure of M-VAC regimen. Int J Clin Oncol 16:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sonpavde G, Pond GR, Choueiri TK et al (2016) Single-agent taxane vs. taxane-containing combination chemotherapy as salvage therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 69:634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raggi D, Miceli R, Sonpavde G et al (2016) Second-line single-agent versus doublet chemotherapy as salvage therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 27:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Geldart T, Chester J, Casbard A et al (2015) SUCCINCT: an open-label, single-arm, non-randomised, phase 2 trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy in combination with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 67:599–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Petrylak DP, Tagawa ST, Kohli M et al (2016) Docetaxel as monotherapy or combined with ramucirumab or icrucumab in second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: an open-label, three-arm, randomized controlled phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1500–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Petrylak DP, de Wit R, Chi KN et al (2017) Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390:2266–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Witte RS, Elson P, Bono B et al (1997) Eastern cooperative oncology group phase II trial of ifosfamide in the treatment of previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 15:589–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Albers P, Siener R, Hartlein M et al (2002) Gemcitabine monotherapy as second-line treatment in cisplatin-refractory transitional cell carcinoma—prognostic factors for response and improvement of quality of life. Onkologie 25:47–52Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lorusso V, Pollera CF, Antimi M et al (1998) A phase II study of gemcitabine in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract previously treated with platinum. Italian Co-operative Group on bladder cancer. Eur J Cancer 34:1208–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sternberg CN, Calabro F, Pizzocaro G et al (2001) Chemotherapy with an every-2-week regimen of gemcitabine and paclitaxel in patients with transitional cell carcinoma who have received prior cisplatin-based therapy. Cancer 92:2993–2998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pectasides D, Aravantinos G, Kalofonos H et al (2001) Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and ifosfamide as second-line treatment in metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase II trial conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 12:1417–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sweeney CJ, Roth BJ, Kabbinavar FF et al (2006) Phase II study of pemetrexed for second-line treatment of transitional cell cancer of the urothelium. J Clin Oncol 24:3451–3457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Galsky MD, Mironov S, Iasonos A et al (2007) Phase II trial of pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Invest New Drugs 25:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dreicer R, Li S, Manola J et al (2007) Phase 2 trial of epothilone B analog BMS-247550 (ixabepilone) in advanced carcinoma of the urothelium (E3800): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer 110:759–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Winquist E, Vokes E, Moore MJ et al (2005) A Phase II study of oxaliplatin in urothelial cancer. Urol Oncol 23:150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vaughn DJ, Srinivas S, Stadler WM et al (2009) Vinflunine in platinum-pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results of a large phase 2 study. Cancer 115:4110–4117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Culine S, Theodore C, De Santis M et al (2006) A phase II study of vinflunine in bladder cancer patients progressing after first-line platinum-containing regimen. Br J Cancer 94:1395–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Beer TM, Goldman B, Nichols CR et al (2008) Southwest Oncology Group phase II study of irinotecan in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium that progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 6:36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Witte RS, Manola J, Burch PA et al (1998) Topotecan in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma: an ECOG phase II trial. Invest New Drugs 16:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dreicer R, Li H, Stein M et al (2009) Phase 2 trial of sorafenib in patients with advanced urothelial cancer: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer 115:4090–4095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gallagher DJ, Milowsky MI, Gerst SR et al (2010) Phase II study of sunitinib in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1373–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Necchi A, Mariani L, Zaffaroni N et al (2012) Pazopanib in advanced and platinum-resistant urothelial cancer: an open-label, single group, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:810–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pili R, Qin R, Flynn PJ et al (2013) A phase II safety and efficacy study of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 11:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jones RJ, Hussain SA, Protheroe AS et al (2017) Randomized phase II study investigating pazopanib versus weekly paclitaxel in relapsed or progressive urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 35:1770–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel S. Merseburger
    • 2
  • Andrea B. Apolo
    • 3
  • Simon Chowdhury
    • 4
  • Noah M. Hahn
    • 5
  • Matthew D. Galsky
    • 6
  • Matthew I. Milowsky
    • 7
  • Daniel Petrylak
    • 8
  • Tom Powles
    • 9
  • David I. Quinn
    • 10
  • Jonathan E. Rosenberg
    • 11
  • Arlene Siefker-Radtke
    • 12
  • Guru Sonpavde
    • 13
  • Cora N. Sternberg
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologySan Camillo Forlanini HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Campus LübeckUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinLübeckGermany
  3. 3.Center for Cancer ResearchNational Cancer Institute, NIH MarylandBethesdaUSA
  4. 4.Guy’s and St, Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  5. 5.Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer CenterJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, The Tisch Cancer InstituteIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterChapel HillUSA
  8. 8.Yale Cancer CenterNew HavenUSA
  9. 9.Barts Cancer InstituteLondonUSA
  10. 10.Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  11. 11.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  12. 12.Department of Genitourinary Medical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  13. 13.Department of Medical Oncology, Bladder Cancer CenterDana Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations