Advertisement

BMC Urology

, 19:90 | Cite as

Comparison of gemcitabine and anthracycline antibiotics in prevention of superficial bladder cancer recurrence

  • Tian-Wei Wang
  • Hui Yuan
  • Wen-Li Diao
  • Rong Yang
  • Xiao-Zhi Zhao
  • Hong-Qian GuoEmail author
Open Access
Research article
  • 405 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Urological oncology

Abstract

Background

Because of the failure, shortage and related toxicities of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), the other intravesical chemotherapy drugs are also widely used in clinical application. Gemcitabine and anthracycline antibiotics (epirubicin and pirarubicin) are widely used as first-line or salvage therapy, but which drug is better is less discussed.

Methods

A total of 124 primary NMIBC patients administered intravesical therapy after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) at Nanjing Drum Tower hospital from January 1996 to July 2018. After TURBT, all patients accepted standard intravesical chemotherapy. Recurrence was defined as the occurrence of a new tumor in the bladder. Progression was defined as confirmed tumor invading muscular layer. Treatment failure was defined as need for radical cystectomy (RC), systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Results

Of the 124 patients who underwent intravesical chemotherapy, 84 patients were given gemcitabine, 40 patients were given epirubicin or pirarubicin, with mean follow-up times (mean ± SD) of (34.8 ± 17.9) and (35.9 ± 22.1) months respectively. The clinical and pathological features of patients show no difference between two groups. Recurrence rate of patients given gemcitabine was 8.33% (7 out of 84), the recurrence rate was 45% (18 out of 40) for epirubicin or pirarubicin (P < 0.0001). The progression rates of gemcitabine, anthracycline antibiotics groups were 2.38% (2 out of 84) and 20% (8 out of 40), respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of treatment failure is 8.33% (7 out of 84) and 25% (10 out of 40), respectively (P = 0.012). Gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy group was significantly related to a lower rate of recurrence (HR = 0.165, 95% CI 0.069–0.397, P = 0.000), progression (HR = 0.160, 95% CI 0.032–0.799, P = 0.026) and treatment failure (HR = 0.260, 95% CI 0.078–0.867, P = 0.028).

Conclusion

In conclusion, gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy group was significantly related to a lower rate of recurrence, progression and treatment failure. Gemcitabine could be considered as a choice for these patients who are not suitable for BCG.

Keywords

Gemcitabine Anthracycline antibiotics NMIBC Intravesical therapy 

Abbreviations

AUA

American urological association

BCa

Bladder cancer

BCG

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin

DFS

Disease free survival

EAU

European Association of Urology

GC

Gemcitabine and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy

NMIBC

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

RC

Radical cystectomy

TURBT

Transurethral resection of bladder tumor

Background

According to EAU Guidelines, bladder cancer (BCa) is the 11th mostly diagnosed cancer in the population. About 75% of bladder cancers are NMIBC at initial diagnosis [1], 60% of these patients experience recurrence and 10% experience progression in 5 years [2].T1 tumor, HG/G3tumor, CIS, multifocal, recurrent before and tumor size is larger than 3 cm are regarded as high-risk tumors. Micropapillary, plasmocytoid, nested, sarcomatoid, microcystic, squamous, and adeno variants of urothelial carcinoma have a poor prognosis [1]. In order to control disease recurrence and progression, intravesical therapy is conventional used after TURBT.

Intravesical BCG therapy is a standard treatment for NMIBC after TURBT [3]. Although BCG has been regarded as the most effective intravesical therapy, it also has disadvantages in clinical use. Firstly, intravesical BCG therapy is associated with adverse effects such as reactive arthritis [4] and Poncet’s disease [5]. Secondly, the production of BCG can’t meet the market demand, which leads to a world-wide shortage of BCG [6]. Thirdly, up to 40% patients do not respond to intravesical BCG therapy [7]. For all these reasons and more, gemcitabine and anthracycline antibiotics are also widely used clinically as first-line therapy or salvage therapy. However, whether gemcitabine is superior to other intravesical chemotherapy drugs is rarely discussed.

In the present study, we aimed to assess the impact of different intravesical chemotherapy drugs on recurrence, progression and treatment failure in patients with NMIBC.

Methods

A total of 124 primary NMIBC patients administered intravesical therapy after TURBT at Nanjing Drum Tower hospital from January 1996 to July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria: The patients were primary diagnosed with NMIBC and all of them accepted TURBT followed by intravesical therapy; The demographic, clinical and pathological information was accurate. Histology was affirmed by experienced pathologists at the department of pathology. The grade classification of urothelium carcinomas was according to 2004 WHO classifications and the TNM classification was based on 2002 TNM classification approved by the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer. All patients were stratified according to AUA risk strata. The surgeons evaluated the location, size and numbers of tumors during the operations. All of these patients accepted the immediate chemotherapy after operation. The intravesical therapeutic regimen is shown below: Perfusion once a week for 6 weeks; then once every 2 weeks for 12 weeks; next once a month for 6 months; following once every 2 months until a full year. The respectively per dosage of gemcitabine, pirarubicin and epirubicin is 1000 mg, 40 mg and 40 mg. Treatment plan was timely adjusted according to the review results.

Follow up

Patients were followed up every 3 months with urine cytology and cystoscopy during the first year, every 6 months for the next 2 years, and then yearly thereafter. Ultrasonography, CT scanning, cystoscopy and urinary cytology were used to evaluate recurrence. Recurrence was defined as the occurrence of a new tumor in the bladder. Progression was defined as confirmed tumor invading muscular layer. Treatment failure was defined as need for radical cystectomy (RC), systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0. The categorized data was presented as count value, the continuous variables were reported as mean ± SD. The continuous and categorized data were compared using the t test and Chi square test. Meier method was used to generate the survival curves. The log-rank test was used to verify statistical significance between curves. The multivariable proportional hazards model was used to test prognostic factors with P < 0.2 in univariate analysis. Multivariate analyses of data were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Figures drawing were performing with GraphPad Prism 7. For all statistical comparisons, a value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of the 124 patients who underwent intravesical chemotherapy at Nanjing drum tower hospital, 84 patients were given gemcitabine, 40 patients were given epirubicin or pirarubicin, with mean follow-up times (mean ± SD) of (34.8 ± 17.9) and (35.9 ± 22.1) months respectively. The clinical and pathological features of patients show no difference between two groups. The baseline characteristics of patients according to treatments are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of patients

Patient data

Intravesical chemotherapy drug

P

Gemcitabine (n = 84)

n(%)

Epirubicin or Pirarubicin (n = 40)

n(%)

Gender

 Male

61 (72.62%)

30 (75%)

0.779

 Female

23 (27.38%)

10 (25%)

Age (years)

 < 65

39 (46.43%)

14 (35%)

0.229

 ≥ 65

45 (53.57%)

26 (65%)

Multifocality

 Single

41 (53.25%)

20 (57.14%)

0.701

 Multiple

36 (46.75%)

15 (42.86%)

Size (cm)

 < 3

57 (67.86%)

25 (62.5%)

0.427

 ≥ 3

27 (32.14%)

15 (37.5%)

Grade

 Low

42 (57.53%)

19 (51.35%)

0.538

 High

31 (42.47%)

18 (48.65%)

Risk

 Low

19 (22.62%)

13 (32.50%)

0.452

 Immediate

25 (29.76%)

9 (22.50%)

 High

40 (47.62%)

18 (45.00%)

reTURBT

 Yes

33 (39.29%)

17 (42.50%)

0.733

 No

51 (60.71%)

23 (57.50%)

Follow up months

 (mean ± SD)

34.8 (17.9)

35.9 (22.1)

0.772

Clinical outcome of the two groups is shown in Table 2. Recurrence rate of patients who was given gemcitabine was 8.33% (7 out of 84), the recurrence rates were 45% (18 out of 40) for epirubicin or pirarubicin (P < 0.001). The progression rates of gemcitabine, epirubicin or pirarubicin groups were 2.38% (2 out of 84) and 20% (8 out of 40), respectively (P < 0.01). The rate of treatment failure was 8.33% (7 out of 84) and 25% (10 out of 40), respectively (P < 0.05), as shown in Table 2. Taken together, intravesical chemotherapy with different drugs showed an obvious statistically difference, the epirubicin or pirarubicin group had a higher recurrence free survival, progression free survival and treatment failure free survival rate than gemcitabine group.
Table 2

Recurrence, progression and treatment failure rates of the two groups

 

Gemcitabine

Epirubicin or Pirarubicin

P

Recurrence

 Yes

7 (8.33%)

18 (45%)

0.000

 No

77 (91.67%)

22 (55%)

Progression

 Yes

2 (2.38%)

8 (20%)

0.001

 No

82 (97.62%)

32 (80%)

Treatment failure

 Yes

7 (8.33%)

10 (25%)

0.012

 No

77 (91.67%)

30 (75%)

The log-rank tests show obvious differences between the two groups in recurrence free survival rates, progression free survival rates and treatment failure free survival rates. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of two groups are graphically presented in Fig. 1a–c. Tumor recurrence, progression and treatment failure differ significantly between these groups. Comparing with epirubin or pirarubicin group, gemcitabine group showed obvious advantage in inhibiting tumor recurrence, progression and treatment failure. After univariate analysis, variables with p < 0.2 were enrolled into multivariate analysis (Table 3). Gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy group was significantly related to a lower rate of recurrence (HR = 0.165, 95% CI 0.069–0.397, P = 0.000), lower rate of progression (HR = 0.160, 95% CI 0.032–0.799, P = 0.026) and treatment failure (HR = 0.260, 95% CI 0.078–0.867, P = 0.028).
Fig. 1

a-c Kaplan–Meier curves for all patients. a Recurrence free survival; b progression free survival; c Treatment failure free survival. Tumor recurrence, progression and treatment failure differ significantly between these groups. Comparing with epirubin or pirarubicin group, gemcitabine group showed obvious advantage in inhibiting tumor recurrence, progression and treatment failure

Table 3

Univariate and multivariate standard Cox proportional hazards analysis of variables associated with tumor recurrence, progression and treatment failure in all patients

Variable

Univariate HR (95% CI)

P

Multivariate HR (95% CI)

p

Recurrence

 Gender

1.338 (0.817–2.191)

0.247

  

 Age

1.497 (0.658–3.403)

0.336

  

 Multifocality

1.526 (0.642–3.629)

0.339

  

 Size

1.869 (0.850–4.108)

0.120

2.668 (1.146–6.215)

0.023

 Grade

0.443 (0.190–1.033)

0.060

1.243 (0.232–6.664)

0.800

 Risk

  Lowa

  Immediate

1.934 (0.696–5.371)

0.206

2.762 (0.461–16.543)

0.266

  High

3.019 (1.186–7.685)

0.020

3.632 (0.535–24.633)

0.187

reTURBT

0.441 (0.182–1.068)

0.070

0.667 (0.134–3.313)

0.620

 Gemcitabine vs Epirubicin or Pirarubicin

0.159 (0.066–0.382)

0.000

0.179 (0.072–0.447)

< 0.001

Progression

 Gender

1.266 (0.583–2.747)

0.552

  

 Age

0.765 (0.221–2.644)

0.672

  

 Multifocality

4.063 (0.819–20.143)

0.086

4.168 (0.827–21.000)

0.084

 Size

2.188 (0.195–24.519)

0.525

  

 Grade

1.333 (0.376–4.727)

0.657

  

 Risk

  Lowa

  Immediate

0.993 (0.181–5.432)

0.993

  

  High

1.945 (0.486–7.780)

0.347

  

reTURBT

0.323 (0.068–1.521)

0.153

0.278 (0.055–1.394)

0.120

 Gemcitabine vs Epirubicin or Pirarubicin

0.110 (0.023–0.518)

0.005

0.155 (0.031–0.781)

0.024

Treatment failure

 Gender

0.447 (0.128–1.561)

0.207

  

 Age

2.094 (0.736–5.960)

0.166

2.244 (0.591–8.527)

0.235

 Multifocality

2.156 (0.739–6.290)

0.160

1.447 (0.479–4.368)

0.512

 Size

0.897 (0.314–2.562)

0.840

  

 Grade

1.485 (0.491–4.485)

0.484

  

 Risk

  Lowa

  Immediate

1.315 (0.443–3.906)

0.622

  

  High

0.455 (0.099–2.080)

0.310

  

reTURBT

1.429 (0.537–3.804)

0.475

  

 Gemcitabine vs Epirubicin or Pirarubicin

0.377 (0.140–1.018)

0.054

0.248 (0.074–0.830)

0.024

aReferenced category. reTURBT, repeated transurethral resection of bladder tumor

Toxicity evaluation

Common side effects in both groups included chemical cystitis, urinary frequency, hematuria and suprapubic discomfort. Overall 4% of patients experienced side effects and no patients stopped chemotherapy because of side effects. None of the toxicities were fatal.

Discussion

Although BCG is used as first-line intravesical therapy for NMIBC patients after TURBT, its shortcomings also poses a management dilemma in clinical application, which force clinicians to search for better therapeutic strategies. As some patients do not respond to BCG or cannot tolerate its side effects, Yang et al. used Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) adjuvant chemotherapy instead of BCG intravesical therapy, which showed favorable results [8]. Some researches tried to reduce the standard dose of BCG to lessen the shortage of BCG. However, there is no consensus suggesting that intravesical BCG standard dose can be replaced by now [9]. Kyla N. Velaer et al. reported their experience on sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel as salvage therapy after BCG failure [10]. With the growth demand of BCG and the increasing number of patients, the contradiction will become more and more prominent.

Due to various reasons, gemcitabine is widely used in bladder cancer. In Australia, gemcitabine was setted as first-line intravesical therapy since 2010 [11]. Thiru Prasanna et al. deemed that intravesical gemcitabine had better DFS and lower toxicity when compared with BCG [11]. Pirarubicin and epirubicin has been widely used in intravesical chemotherapy since 1980s and has been proved to be effective. However, William B. Tabayoyong et al. collected seven trials about epirubicin and reported that six trials showed no improvement in recurrence with the maintenance treatment to induction [12]. What’s more, most researchers think pirarubicin and epirubicin have been only able to reduce recurrence but not progression [13]. Gemcitabine, Pirarubicin and epirubicin are widely used in China, but seldom assessed the efficiency between these therapeutic choices.

In our research, we found a trend toward better recurrence free survival, progression free survival and treatment failure free survival in gemcitabine group. It is also important that gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy is an independent protective factor not only for recurrence, but also for progression and treatment failure. Through multivariate analysis, we noted that the size of tumor larger than 3 cm is more likely to recurrent, which is in accord with EAU Guidelines.

There are potential limitations in our analysis. First, it is a retrospective analysis, and our material have limited data. Second, the current study never includes BCG treatment because of limited data. Third, there were other variables never bring into consideration such as molecular subtype of urothelial carcinoma, which may have influenced on results. Most importantly, the limited data may makes the estimate of the treatment effect less robust. Furthermore, a large randomized controlled trial is required to clarify the importance of gemcitabine therapy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, gemcitabine intravesical chemotherapy group was significantly related to a lower rate of recurrence, progression and treatment failure compared to anthracycline antibiotics group. Gemcitabine is superior to epirubicin or pirarubicin in inhibiting tumor recurrence and progression. We deduce that gemcitabine is also better than epirubicin or pirarubicin in salvage therapy and we will further discuss it. BCG is still the first-line intravesical therapy, but gemcitabine could be considered as a choice for those patients who are not suitable for BCG.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks to all the staff in the urology department of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital for their assistance.

Authors’ contributions

W-TW: data collection or management, data analysis and manuscript writing. HY: data collection or management and data analysis. W-LD: data collection or management and data analysis. RY: data collection or management and data analysis. Z-XZ: protocol development. H-QG: protocol development and manuscript editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study received the approval from Ethics Committee of Nanjing drum tower hospital (Approval No. 2017023). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Babjuk M, et al. EAU guidelines on non–muscle-invasive Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):447–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferro M, et al. An increased body mass index is associated with a worse prognosis in patients administered BCG immunotherapy for T1 bladder cancer. World J Urol. 2019;37(3):507-14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kawai K, et al. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) immunotherapy for bladder cancer: current understanding and perspectives on engineered BCG vaccine. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(1):22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoshimura H, et al. Ultrasonographic findings in a patient with reactive arthritis induced by intravesical BCG therapy for bladder cancer. J Med Ultrason. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-018-0889-7.
  5. 5.
    Sampaio et al. Poncet's disease after the intravesical instillation of Bacillus Calmette – Guérin (BCG):a case report. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:416.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bandari J, et al. Manufacturing and the market: rationalizing the shortage of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):481-84.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zlotta AR, Fleshner NE, Jewett MA. The management of BCG failure in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an update. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3(6 Suppl 4):S199–205.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang GL, et al. Commentary on “A novel treatment strategy for newly diagnosed high-grade T1 bladder cancer:Gemcitabine and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy—A single-institution experience.” Urol Oncol. 2017;35(2):38.e9–38.e15.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu C, et al. Assessing the feasibility of replacing standard-dose Bacillus Calmette–Guérin immunotherapy with other intravesical instillation therapies in bladder cancer patients: a network meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017;41(4):1298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velaer KN, et al. Experience with sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel as salvage therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(5):38.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prasanna T, et al. Intravesical Gemcitabine versus Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for the Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: An Evaluation of Efficacy and Toxicity. 2017;7(undefined):260.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tabayoyong WB, et al. Systematic review on the utilization of maintenance intravesical chemotherapy in the management of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):512–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang B, et al. Efficacy of intra-arterial chemotherapy combined with intravesical chemotherapy in T1G3 bladder cancer when compared with intravesical chemotherapy alone after bladder-sparing surgery: a retrospective study. World J Urol. 2019;37(5):823–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanjing Medical UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalMedical School of Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations