Kidney and Cancer Outcomes with Standard Versus Alternative Chemotherapy Regimens for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Key Points Many patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are deemed cisplatin-ineligible because of reduced kidney function. Options include split-dose cisplatin or carboplatin. There was no significant association between regimen type and AKI. Alternative regimens were associated with higher risk of progressive disease. There is a need to revisit cisplatin eligibility criteria and develop strategies to optimize cancer treatment for patients with CKD. Background Cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens remain the optimal first-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, many patients are deemed cisplatin-ineligible, predominantly because of reduced kidney function. Other treatment options include split-dose cisplatin, carboplatin, and non–platinum-based regimens. We compared the incidence of AKI and cancer outcomes within three chemotherapy regimens. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients with mUC who received first-line chemotherapy from 2005 to 2019. We compared standard gemcitabine–cisplatin (gem-cis) with two alternative regimens: ( 1 ) gem-cis split-dose regimen (split) with cisplatin divided over days 1 and 8 and ( 2 ) combination of gemcitabine–carboplatin or single-agent gemcitabine (gem/gem-carbo). The primary outcome was Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes–defined AKI. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and progression-free survival. Results We identified 183 patients (98 gem-cis, 32 split, and 53 gem/gem-carbo). Median baseline eGFR in the gem/cis group was 78 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (interquartile range, 66–91), in the split group 64 (48–77), and in the gem/gem-carbo 45 (33–57). There was no significant association between regimen type and incidence of AKI when adjusted for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, baseline eGFR, hypertension, diabetes, and visceral disease. The adjusted hazard ratios were 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 2.78; P = 0.49) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.46 to 2.07; P = 0.95) for split and gem/gem-carbo groups, respectively, versus gem-cis. Split and gem/gem-carbo regimens were associated with higher mortality and progressive disease relative to gem-cis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.33; P = 0.04) and 1.96 (95% CI, 1.31 to 2.95; P < 0.01), respectively. Median progression free survival was 8.1 (interquartile range, 4.6–14.8), 6.1 (4.1–9.3), and 4.4 (2.3–8.6) months in the gem-cis, split, and gem/gem-carbo groups. Conclusions There was no significant difference in the incidence of AKI between the three regimens studied. However, standard gem-cis was associated with improved cancer outcomes. Novel regimens and kidney protective strategies are needed for patients with mUC with kidney disease.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle