Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 608–615 | Cite as

Vergleich der Effektivität der Langzeitinstillation mit Mitomycin C gegen Kurzzeitprophylaxen mit MMC oder Bacillus Calmette-Guerin

Untersuchung bei Patienten mit nicht muskelinvasivem Urothelkarzinom der Harnblase
  • H. Isbarn
  • L. Budäus
  • U. Pichlmeier
  • S. Conrad
  • H. Huland
  • M.G. Friedrich
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die adjuvante Instillationstherapie mit Chemo- bzw. Immuntherapeutika ist integraler Bestandteil in der Behandlung nicht muskelinvasiver Blasenkarzinome. In der Auswahl des Medikaments sowie in der optimalen Therapiedauer der Anwendung besteht allerdings kein genereller Konsens. Inhalt dieser multizentrischen Studie war der Vergleich einer Langzeittherapie mit Mitomycin C (MMC) mit 2 Kurzzeittherapien mit MMC oder Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) beim intermediären/Hochrisiko- (Intermediate-/High-risk-)Blasentumor nach transurethraler Resektion (TUR-B). Bei Patienten mit Niedrigrisiko- (Low-risk-)Blasentumoren wurde die Effektivität 6-wöchentlicher MMC-Instillationen ermittelt, sowie mit den jeweiligen Ergebnissen bei Patienten ohne adjuvante Behandlung verglichen.

Material und Methoden

Bei 495 Patienten mit Intermediate-/High-risk-Blasentumoren (Rezidiv und/oder multifokales pTaG1, pTaG2-3 oder pT1G1-3) wurde randomisiert entweder BCG RIVM 2x108 CFU 6-mal wöchentlich, MMC 20 mg 6-mal wöchentlich oder MMC 20 mg 6-mal wöchentlich mit anschließenden monatlichen Instillationen über 3 Jahre verabreicht. 132 Low-risk-Patienten (Erstdiagnose eines unifokalen pTaG1-Blasentumors) wurden in 2 Arme randomisiert. Im 1. Arm wurden 20 mg MMC 6-mal wöchentlich instilliert. Im Kontrollarm erhielten die Patienten keine adjuvante Therapie.

Ergebnisse

Bei den Patienten der Intermediate-/High-risk-Gruppe betrug die 3-Jahres-Rezidivfreiheit im BCG-Arm 65,5% (95%-KI=55,9–73,5%) und im MMC-Kurzzeitarm 68,6% (95%-KI=59,9–75,7%). Im MMC-Langzeitarm war die 3-Jahres-Rezidivfreiheit mit 86,1% (95%-KI=77,9–91,4%) signifikant erhöht (Log-Rank-Test, p=0,001). Bei der MMC-Langzeitgabe trat keine erhöhte Toxizität auf. In der Low-risk-Gruppe betrug die 3-Jahres-Rezidivfreiheit nach adjuvanter Therapie 74% (95%-KI=60,0–83,8%), bei den Patienten ohne Adjuvans 63% (95%-KI=46,6–75,5%), entsprechend einer Hazard-Ratio von 0,58 (95%-KI=0,28–1,18%). Der Unterschied in den Behandlungsarmen war nicht signifikant.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Langzeitprophylaxe mit MMC führt bei Intermediate-/High-risk-Blasenkarzinomen zu einer signifikant verringerten Rezidivrate bei vergleichbarem Toxizitätsprofil im Vergleich zu Kurzzeit-MMC- bzw. Kurzzeit-BCG. Bei Low-risk-Tumoren zeigte sich in unserer Studie keine signifikante Senkung der Rezidivrate durch 6 adjuvante MMC-Instillationen. Diese Behandlung stellt somit keine Alternative zur Frühinstillation dar.

Schlüsselwörter

Nicht muskelinvasives Harnblasenkarzinom BCG Mitomycin-C Rezidiv 

Comparison of the effectiveness between long-term instillation of mitomycin C and short-term prophylaxis with MMC or bacille Calmette-Guérin

Study of patients with non-muscle-invasive urothelial cancer of the urinary bladder

Abstract

Background

Adjuvant instillation therapy with chemo- or immunotherapeutic agents is an integral component in the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. There is, however, no general consensus on the choice of medication and the optimal duration of therapy. This multicenter trial compared a long-term treatment regimen with mitomycin C (MMC) with two short-term treatment approaches with MMC or bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for intermediate-/high-risk bladder tumor after transurethral resection. In patients with low-risk bladder tumors, the effectiveness of six weekly MMC instillations was determined and compared with the results of patients not receiving adjuvant treatment.

Material and methods

A total of 495 patients with intermediate-/high-risk bladder tumor (recurrent and/or multifocal pTaG1, pTaG2-3, or pT1G1-3) were randomly administered either BCG-RIVM 2×108 CFU in six weekly instillations, MMC 20 mg in six weekly instillations, or MMC 20 mg in six weekly instillations with subsequent monthly instillations for 3 years. A total of 132 low-risk patients (first diagnosis of a unifocal pTaG1 bladder tumor) were randomly allocated to two treatment arms. In the first arm, 20 mg MMC were instilled weekly six times. In the control arm, the patients received no adjuvant therapy.

Results

The 3-year recurrence-free rate in the patients of the intermediate-/high-risk group was 65.5% (95% CI: 55.9–73.5%) in the BCG arm and 68.6% (95% CI: 59.9–75.7%) in the MMC short-term arm. In the MMC long-term arm, the 3-year recurrence-free rate was significantly higher at 86.1% (95% CI: 77.9–91.4%, log-rank test: p=0.001). There was no increased toxicity observed with long-term administration of MMC. In the low-risk group, the 3-year recurrence-free rate after adjuvant therapy was 74% (95% CI: 60.0–83.8%) and in the patients receiving no adjuvant treatment 63% (95% CI: 46.6–75.5%, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.28–1.18%). The difference between the treatment arms was not significant.

Conclusion

Long-term prophylaxis with MMC results in a significantly reduced recurrence rate in intermediate-/high-risk bladder cancer with a comparable toxicity profile in comparison to short-term MMC or short-term BCG. Our study showed no significant decrease of the recurrence rate in low-risk tumors with six adjuvant MMC instillations. This treatment approach thus does not represent an alternative to early instillation.

Keywords

Non-muscle-invasive urinary bladder cancer BCG Mitomycin C Recurrence 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Chopin DK, Gattegno B (2002) Superficial bladder tumors. Eur Urol 42: 533–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sylvester RJ, Meijden AP van der, Oosterlinck W et al. (2006) Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol 49: 466–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millan-Rodriguez F, Chechile-Toniolo G, Salvador-Bayarri J et al. (2000) Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors of primary superficial bladder cancer. J Urol 163: 73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith JA Jr, Labasky RF, Cockett AT et al. (1999) Bladder cancer clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1 and TIS). The American Urological Association. J Urol 162: 1697–1701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huland H, Kloppel G, Feddersen I et al. (1990) Comparison of different schedules of cytostatic intravesical instillations in patients with superficial bladder carcinoma: final evaluation of a prospective multicenter study with 419 patients. J Urol 144: 68–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouffioux C, Kurth KH, Bono A et al. (1995) Intravesical adjuvant chemotherapy for superficial transitional cell bladder carcinoma: results of 2 EORTC randomized trials with Mitomycin C and doxurubicin comparing early vs, delayed instillations and short-term vs. long-term treatment. EORTC Genitourinary Group. J Urol 153: 934–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malmström PU, Wijkström H, Lundholm C et al. (1999) 5-year followup of a randomized prospective study comparing Mitomycin C and bacillus Calmette-Guerin in patients with superficial bladder carcinoma. Swedish-Norwegian Bladder Cancer Study Group. J Urol 161: 1124–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krege S, Giani G, Meyer R et al. (1996) A randomized multicenter trial of adjuvant therapy in superficial bladder cancer: transurethral resection only vs. transurethral resection plus Mitomycin C vs. transurethral resection plus bacillus Calmette-Guerin. J Urol 156: 962–966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oosterlinck W, Lobel B, Jackse G et al. (2002) EAU Recommendations 2001. „Guidelines on bladder cancer“. Prog Urol 12: 1161–1163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sylvester RJ, Meijden AP van der, Lamm DL (2002) Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin reduces the risk of progression in patients with superficial bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of the published results of randomized clinical trials. J Urol 168: 1964–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Böhle A, Bock PR (2004) Intravesical bacille Calmette-Guerin versus Mitomycin C in superficial bladder cancer: formal meta-analysis of comparative studies on tumor progression. Urology 63: 682–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Böhle A, Jocham D, Bock PR (2003) Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin versus Mitomycin C for superficial bladder cancer: a formal meta-analysis of comparative studies on recurrence and toxicity. J Urol 169: 90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Witjes JA (2006) Management of BCG failures in superficial bladder cancer: a review. Eur Urol 49: 790–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sobin DHWC (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 6th edn. Wiley-Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oosterlinck W, Meijden AP van der, Sylvester R et al. (2006) Guidelines on TaT1 (non-muscle invasive) bladder cancer. EAU Recommendations, Arnhem, NiederlandeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huncharek M, Kupelnick B (2004) The influence of intravesical therapy on progression of superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a metaanalytic comparison of chemotherapy versus bacilli Calmette-Guerin immunotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 27: 522–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundholm C, Norlen BJ, Ekman P et al. (1996) A randomized prospective study comparing long-term intravesical instillations of Mitomycin C and bacillus Calmette-Guerin in patients with superficial bladder carcinoma. J Urol 156: 372–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamm DL, Blumenstein BA, Crawford ED et al. (1995) Randomized intergroup comparison of bacillus Calmette-Guerin immunotherapy and Mitomycin C chemotherapy prophylaxis in superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. A Sothwest Oncology Group Study. Urol Oncol 1: 119–124Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans CP, Busby JE (2003) The management of stage T1 grade 3 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int 92: 345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lamm DL (1995) BCG immunotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma in situ of the bladder. Oncology (Huntingt) 9: 947–965Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Witjes JA, Meijden AP van der, Collette L et al. (1998) Long-term follow-up of an EORTC randomized prospective trial comparing intravesical bacille Calmette-Guerin-RIVM and Mitomycin C in superficial bladder cancer. EORTC GU Group and the Dutch South East Cooperative Urological Group. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Collaborative Group. Urology 52: 403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gardmark T, Jahnson S, Wahlquist R et al. (2007) Analysis of progression and survival after 10 years of a randomized prospective study comparing Mitomycin-C and bacillus Calmette-Guerin in patients with high-risk bladder cancer. BJU Int 4: 817–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Au JL, Badalament RA, Wientjes MG et al. (2001) Methods to improve efficacy of intravesical Mitomycin C: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 597–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sylvester RJ, Oosterlinck W, Meijden AP van der (2004) A single immediate postoperative instillation of chemotherapy decreases the risk of recurrence in patients with stage Ta, T1 bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of published results of randomized clinical trials. J Urol 171: 2186–2435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Isbarn
    • 1
  • L. Budäus
    • 1
  • U. Pichlmeier
    • 2
  • S. Conrad
    • 1
    • 3
  • H. Huland
    • 1
  • M.G. Friedrich
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Abteilung für UrologieUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Medac GmbHWedelDeutschland
  3. 3.Abteilung für UrologieFriederikenstiftHannoverDeutschland
  4. 4.Klinik für Urologie und KinderurologieKlinikumKrefeldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations