World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 2409–2418 | Cite as

Clinical predictors and survival outcome of patients receiving suboptimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a single-center experience

  • Luca BoeriEmail author
  • Matteo Soligo
  • Igor Frank
  • Stephen A. Boorjian
  • R. Houston Thompson
  • Matthew Tollefson
  • Robert Tarrel
  • Fernando J. Quevedo
  • John C. Cheville
  • R. Jeffrey Karnes
Original Article



To investigate the prevalence of and factors’ association with receiving suboptimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and its impact on survival outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with radical cystectomy (RC).


We reviewed 1119 patients treated with NAC and/or RC for cT2-cT4N0M0 BC. Patients were segregated into three groups: (i) suboptimal NAC (received < 3 cycles of cisplatin-based NAC or non-cisplatin-based regimen), (ii) optimal NAC and (iii) no NAC. Clinical characteristics were compared among groups. Logistic regression analyses tested the association between clinical variables and the odds of receiving suboptimal NAC. To adjust for potential baseline confounders, propensity score matching was performed. Pathologic outcomes were compared between groups and Cox regression analyses tested the risk factors associated with recurrence, overall (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM).


Before matching, 84/315 (26.6%) patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen. Lower general health status and impaired renal functions were the most significant factors associated with the administration of a suboptimal NAC. After matching, the optimal NAC group achieved higher rates of complete pathological response as compared to the suboptimal group (p = 0.03). Suboptimal NAC (HR 1.77; p = 0.015) and no NAC (HR 1.52; p = 0.03) were both associated with higher risk of recurrence and OM (HR 1.71; p = 0.02 and HR 1.61; p = 0.02) as compared to optimal NAC.


One out of four MIBC patients received a suboptimal NAC regimen before RC. Receiving a suboptimal NAC regimen was associated with worse disease recurrence and survival outcomes following surgery, as compared to an optimal NAC regimen.


Bladder cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Cisplatin Risk factors Survival outcomes 


Authors’ contribution

LB: Manuscript writing, data analysis. MS, IF, SAB, RHT, MT, RT, FJQ: data collection or management. JCC: data collection or management, project development. RJK: protocol/project development, data collection or management.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethical committee of Mayo Clinic (IRB 18-001622).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients’ parents included in the study.

Supplementary material

345_2019_2689_MOESM1_ESM.xls (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 1583 kb)
345_2019_2689_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (48 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 47 kb)


  1. 1.
    Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Bangs R et al (2017) Bladder cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Comp Canc Netw 15:1240–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossman HB, Natale RB, Tangen CM et al (2003) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 349:859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (2005) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data advanced bladder cancer (ABC) meta-analysis collaboration. Eur Urol 48:202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (2005) Adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) meta-analysis Collaboration. Eur Urol 48:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raj GV, Karavadia S, Schlomer B et al (2011) Contemporary use of perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer 117:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaid HB, Patel SG, Stimson CJ et al (2014) Trends in the utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results from the National Cancer Database. Urology 83:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cowan NG, Chen Y, Downs TM et al (2014) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in bladder cancer: a survey of current practice and opinions. Adv Urol 2014:746298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hensley PJ, Goodwin J, Davenport DL et al (2018) Optimization of patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Clin Genitourin Cancer 16:e851–e858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gandhi NM, Baras A, Munari E et al (2015) Gemcitabine and cisplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: predicting response and assessing outcomes. Urol Oncol 33:204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinata N, Hussein AA, George S et al (2017) Impact of suboptimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy on peri-operative outcomes and survival after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a multicentre multinational study. BJU Int 119:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL et al (2017) AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th edn. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hussain M, Daignault S, Agarwal N et al (2014) A randomized phase 2 trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin with or without cetuximab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 120:2684–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT et al (2000) 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. J Clin Oncol 18:3068–3077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith DC, Mackler NJ, Dunn RL et al (2008) Phase II trial of paclitaxel, carboplatin and gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 180:2384–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Agostino RB Jr (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi W, Porten S, Kim S et al (2014) Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle- invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to front line chemo- therapy. Cancer 25:152–165Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenblatt R, Sherif A, Rintala E et al (2012) Pathologic downstaging is a surrogate marker for efficacy and increased survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 61:1229–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petrelli F, Coinu A, Cabiddu M et al (2014) Correlation of pathologic complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer treated with cystectomy: a meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sonpavde G, Goldman BH, Speights VO et al (2009) Quality of pathologic response and surgery correlate with survival for patients with completely resected bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 115:4104–4109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chappidi MR, Kates M, Brant A et al (2017) Assessing cancer progression and stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for organ confined muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urology 102:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zargar H, Espiritu PN, Fairey AS et al (2015) Multicenter assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 67:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zargar H, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Lotan Y et al (2016) Final pathological stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for bladder cancer-does pT0 predict better survival than pTa/Tis/T1? J Urol 195:886–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    van de Putte EE, Mertens LS, Meijer RP et al (2016) Neoadjuvant induction dose-dense MVAC for muscle invasive bladder cancer: efficacy and safety compared with classic MVAC and gemcitabine/cisplatin. World J Urol 34:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vetterlein MW, Wankowicz SAM, Seisen T et al (2017) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant histology. Cancer 15(123):4346–4355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Boeri
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Matteo Soligo
    • 1
  • Igor Frank
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Boorjian
    • 1
  • R. Houston Thompson
    • 1
  • Matthew Tollefson
    • 1
  • Robert Tarrel
    • 1
  • Fernando J. Quevedo
    • 3
  • John C. Cheville
    • 4
  • R. Jeffrey Karnes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyFoundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Medical OncologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations