Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

281 small cell bladder cancer analysis from spanish institutions

Date

09 Oct 2016

Session

Poster display

Presenters

Mª José Juan Fita

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 266-295. 10.1093/annonc/mdw373

Authors

M.J. Juan Fita1, M. Ramirez-Backhaus2, X. Bonet Puntí3, J. Gomez4, E. Ramos5, L. Pesquera6, A. Rodriguez-Vida7, I. Lacasa Viscasillas8, J.C. Villa Guzman9, R. Sanchez-Salas10, J.L. Sanchez Sanchez11, M.J. Miranda12, S. Valverde13, L. Izquierdo14, A. Serrano15, P. Pellejero16, I. Garcia17, I. Ortiz18, J. Rubio Briones2, M.A. Climent19

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 - Valencia/ES
  • 2 Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia/ES
  • 3 Urology, Hospital de Bellvitge, Barcelona/ES
  • 4 Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid/ES
  • 5 Urology, Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla, Santander/ES
  • 6 Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid/ES
  • 7 Medical Oncology, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona/ES
  • 8 Urology, Hospital de Basurto, Bilbao/ES
  • 9 Medical Oncology, Hospital General Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real/ES
  • 10 Urology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris/FR
  • 11 Medical Oncology, Hospital de Villajoyosa, Alicante/ES
  • 12 Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario St Joan de Reus, Reus/ES
  • 13 Urology, Hospital Nuestra Señora de Sonsoles, Ávila/ES
  • 14 Urology, Hospital Clinic y Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona/ES
  • 15 Urology, Hospital Clinico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid/ES
  • 16 Urology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo/ES
  • 17 Medical Oncology, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo/ES
  • 18 Matemáticas, Universidad de Almería, Almeria/ES
  • 19 Medical Oncology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia/ES
More

Resources

Abstract 1850

Background

Representing the 0,7% of all bladder cancers, the small cell carcinomas (SCBC) are characterized by their aggressiveness, rapid progression and early metastasis. Therapeutic outcomes have not improved over the last 20 years and, due to lack of prospective studies, standard treatments for localized or metastatic disease are not yet well established.

Methods

Pooled analysis of 281 patients with pure or mixed SCBC from 28 spanish centers, treated between 1992 and 2015, has been performed. Endpoints of this study were: disease clinical and pathological characteristics, treatments performed and differences in OS. Differences among treatment options for localized SCBC are reported: radical cistectomy (RC), neoadjuvant (NeoQT) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AdjQT) (carboplatin-etoposide (CA-VP16) or cisplatin-etoposide (C-VP16).

Results

With a median follow up of 108 months, 281 SCBC patients are included. Median age at diagnosis was 71,9 years, 86,1% were male and 77,4% smokers. Histology was predominantly SCBC in 100% of the cases, 60(50,4%) were pure microcytic histology, 33(27,7%) had transitional component and 36(30,2%) had sarcomatoid, micropapillary or other lineage. RC was performed in 119 patients (49,2%). Nine (7%) tumors were pT0, 11(8,6%) were non muscle invasive, 83(64,8%) invaded muscular and 25(19,5%) were pT4. Twenty four (11, 8%) patients received NeoQT (41,8% C-VP16 and 44,3% CA-VP16); AdjQT was given in 47(23,2%) cases, (31,3% C-VP16 and 45,8% CA-VP16). Median OS among treatments were: 98,3 months for RC, 73,2 months for NeoQT (C-VP16 43,9m; CA-VP16: 30,8m) and 100,4 months for AdjQT (C-VP16: 137,4 m; CA-VP16: 45,4m), the differences found not to be statistically significant (p = 0,75).

Conclusions

We present the largest published series on SCBC. Outcome data from 281 SCBC cases has not shown statistically significant differences in OS among patients who have undergone RC alone compared to those receiving NeoQT or AdjQT (p = 0,75). Furthermore, no significant differences among the different QT schemes were observed.

Clinical trial identification

There is not clinical trial protocol number

Legal entity responsible for the study

N/A

Funding

N/A

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings