Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 2401–2407 | Cite as

Propensity-matched analysis of patient-reported outcomes for neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy

  • Michael A. FeuersteinEmail author
  • Leah Goldstein
  • Brieyona Reaves
  • Arony Sun
  • Michael Goltzman
  • Bradley A. Morganstern
  • Ahmad Shabsigh
  • Dean F. Bajorin
  • Jonathan E. Rosenberg
  • S. Machele Donat
  • Harry W. Herr
  • Vincent P. Laudone
  • Thomas M. Atkinson
  • Yuelin Li
  • Guido Dalbagni
  • Bruce Rapkin
  • Bernard H. Bochner
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for bladder cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC) using longitudinal data and propensity-matched scoring analyses.

Methods

155 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for RC completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BLM30, Fear of Recurrence Scale, Mental Health Inventory and Satisfaction with Life Scale within 4 weeks of surgery. A propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing pre-surgery PROs among 101 patients who completed NAC versus 54 patients who did not receive NAC. We also compared PROs pre- and post-chemotherapy for 16 patients who had data available for both time points.

Results

In propensity-matched analysis, NAC-treated patients reported better emotional and sexual function, mental health, urinary function and fewer financial concerns compared to those that did not receive NAC. Longitudinal analysis showed increases in fatigue, nausea and appetite loss following chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Propensity-matched analysis did not demonstrate a negative effect of NAC on PRO. Several positive associations of NAC were found in the propensity-matched analysis, possibly due to other confounding differences between the two groups or actual clinical benefit. Longitudinal analysis of a small number of patients found small to modest detrimental effects from NAC similar to toxicities previously reported. Our preliminary findings, along with known survival and toxicity data, should be considered in decision-making for NAC.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes Patient-centered research Health-related quality of life Bladder cancer 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

MA Feuerstein: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing. L Goldstein: project development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing. B Reaves: project development, data collection and management, data analysis. A Sun: data collection and management. M Goltzman: project development, data collection and management. BA Morganstern: project development, data collection and management. A Shabsigh: protocol and project development. DF Bajorin: protocol and project development. JE Rosenberg: protocol and project development. SM Donat: protocol and project development. HW Herr: protocol and project development. VP Laudone: protocol and project development. TM Atkinson: data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. Y Li: protocol and project development, data analysis. G Dalbagni: protocol and project development. B Rapkin: protocol and project development, data management, data analysis, manuscript writing. BH Bochner: protocol and project development, data management, data analysis, manuscript writing.

Funding

This work was funded in part by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute (PCORI #ME-1306-00781) to Dr. Rapkin. This project was supported by the Michael and Zena Wiener Family Bladder Cancer Fund, Pin Down Bladder Cancer Foundation, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, and a National Institutes of Health Support Grant (NCI 2P30 CA08748-50) that partially supported the Patient-Reported Outcomes, Community-Engagement, and Language Core Facility used in completing this investigation. Dr. Feuerstein was supported by the National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health under Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant T32 CA082088.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Comprehensive Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Bladder Cancer. Version 2.2018, 2018Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vale CL, Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis, C (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 48:202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Advanced Bladder Cancer Overview, C.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD005246, 2005Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    David KA, Milowsky MI, Ritchey J et al (2007) Low incidence of perioperative chemotherapy for stage III bladder cancer 1998 to 2003: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. J Urol 178:451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter MP, Kerrigan MC, Donato BM et al (2011) Patterns of use of systemic chemotherapy for Medicare beneficiaries with urothelial bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 29:252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finnbladder NB (1999) Neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a randomised controlled trial. International collaboration of trialists. Lancet 354:533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 349:859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malmstrom PU, Rintala E, Wahlqvist R et al (1996) Five-year followup of a prospective trial of radical cystectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Nordic Cystectomy Trial I. The Nordic Cooperative Bladder Cancer Study Group. J Urol 155:1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sherif A, Rintala E, Mestad O et al (2002) Neoadjuvant cisplatin-methotrexate chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer—Nordic cystectomy trial 2. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36:419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morganstern BA, Bochner B, Dalbagni G et al (2011) The psychological context of quality of life: a psychometric analysis of a novel idiographic measure of bladder cancer patients’ personal goals and concerns prior to surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J et al (1998) Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sprangers MA, Cull A, Groenvold M et al (1998) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: an update and overview. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Qual Life Res 7:291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ et al (1985) The satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess 49:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Northouse LL (1981) Mastectomy patients and the fear of cancer recurrence. Cancer Nurs 4:213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA et al (1991) Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care 29:169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 40:373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM CorpGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dash A, Pettus JAT, Herr HW et al (2008) A role for neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a retrospective experience. Cancer 113:2471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basch E (2010) The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 362:865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T et al (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 7:903CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Feuerstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leah Goldstein
    • 1
  • Brieyona Reaves
    • 1
  • Arony Sun
    • 1
  • Michael Goltzman
    • 1
  • Bradley A. Morganstern
    • 1
  • Ahmad Shabsigh
    • 1
  • Dean F. Bajorin
    • 1
  • Jonathan E. Rosenberg
    • 1
  • S. Machele Donat
    • 1
  • Harry W. Herr
    • 1
  • Vincent P. Laudone
    • 1
  • Thomas M. Atkinson
    • 2
  • Yuelin Li
    • 2
  • Guido Dalbagni
    • 1
  • Bruce Rapkin
    • 3
  • Bernard H. Bochner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery-Urology ServiceMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Population HealthAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations