Changes in conditional survival (CS) in de novo metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database analysis.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4548-4548
Author(s):  
Kara DeWalt ◽  
Nicholas J. Vogelzang ◽  
Rebecca A. Nelson ◽  
Sumanta Kumar Pal
PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e0136622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumanta Kumar Pal ◽  
Yulan Ingrid Lin ◽  
Bertram Yuh ◽  
Kara DeWalt ◽  
Austin Kazarian ◽  
...  

Urology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Fabio A.B. Schutz ◽  
Nathanael D. Hevelone ◽  
Paul L. Nguyen ◽  
Stuart R. Lipsitz ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ariel A. Nelson ◽  
Robert J. Cronk ◽  
Emily A. Lemke ◽  
Aniko Szabo ◽  
Ali R. Khaki ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) with early bone metastases (eBM) vs no early bone metastases (nBM) have not thoroughly been described in the age of immuno-oncology. OBJECTIVE: To compare survival and other clinical outcomes in patients with eBM and nBM. METHODS: We used a multi-institutional database of patients with mUC treated with systemic therapy. Demographic, metastatic site, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square tests were performed. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method; multivariable Cox analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 270 pts, 67%men, mean age 69±11 years. At metastatic diagnosis, 27%had≥1 eBM and were more likely to have de novo vs. recurrent metastases (42%vs 19%, p <  0.001). Patients with eBM had shorter overall survival (OS) vs. those with nBM, (6.1 vs 13.7 months, p <  0.0001). On multivariable analysis, eBM independently associated with higher risk of death, HR = 2.52 (95%CI: 1.75–3.63, p <  0.0001). OS was shorter for patients with eBM who received initial immune checkpoint inhibitor vs platinum-based chemotherapy, (1.6 vs 9.1 months, p = 0.02). Patients with eBM received higher opioid analgesic doses compared to patients with nBM and received quantitatively more palliative radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mUC and eBM have poorer outcomes, may benefit less from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and represent an unmet need for novel therapeutic interventions. Dedicated clinical trials, biomarker validation to assist in patient selection, as well as consensus on reporting of non-measurable disease are required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document