Open Access

Vinflunine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: A Nordic retrospective multicenter analysis

Corrigendum in: /10.3892/ol.2017.6082

  • Authors:
    • Karin Holmsten
    • Line Hammer Dohn
    • Niels Viggo Jensen
    • Carl‑Henrik Shah
    • Fredrik Jäderling
    • Helle Pappot
    • Anders Ullén
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: June 23, 2016     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4775
  • Pages: 1293-1300
  • Copyright: © Holmsten et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

In 2009, vinflunine was introduced as a second‑line treatment to be used after the failure of platinum therapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The present study investigated the administered vinflunine to patients with mUC in standard clinical practice with the aim of evaluating treatment patterns, response, survival parameters and side-effects. Data were collected retrospectively from the first 100 mUC patients treated with vinflunine at three Nordic cancer centers associated with the Nordic Urothelial Cancer Oncology Group. The overall response rate was 23% and complete response was observed in one patient. The median progression‑free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 2.8 (range, 0.5‑34.3) and 6.3 (range, 0.3‑39.7) months, respectively. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2 was present in 20% of the patients, and those patients exhibited significantly shorter mOS (4.1 vs. 7.0 months, P=0.001) and a significantly higher degree of grade 3/4 toxicity (P=0.026) compared with ECOG PS 0‑1 patients. Furthermore, patients without visceral metastases had significantly longer mOS than patients with visceral metastases (10.6 vs. 6.0 months, P=0.008). The median number of cycles of vinflunine was 3 (range, 1‑28). The current data confirms that vinflunine is an active agent for second‑line treatment in an unselected clinical cohort of patients with mUC. ECOG PS and presence of visceral metastases were significant prognostic parameters. In particular, patients with ECOG PS 2 receiving vinflunine had a shorter mOS and a higher frequency of severe toxicity, and, thus, should be treated with caution. Furthermore, the present study observed large inter-individual differences in radiological response and OS, indicating the need for further development of improved patient selection tools to optimize vinflunine treatment in platinum‑refractory mUC patients.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2016
Volume 12 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Holmsten K, Hammer Dohn L, Jensen NV, Shah CH, Jäderling F, Pappot H and Ullén A: Vinflunine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: A Nordic retrospective multicenter analysis Corrigendum in /10.3892/ol.2017.6082. Oncol Lett 12: 1293-1300, 2016
APA
Holmsten, K., Hammer Dohn, L., Jensen, N.V., Shah, C., Jäderling, F., Pappot, H., & Ullén, A. (2016). Vinflunine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: A Nordic retrospective multicenter analysis Corrigendum in /10.3892/ol.2017.6082. Oncology Letters, 12, 1293-1300. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4775
MLA
Holmsten, K., Hammer Dohn, L., Jensen, N. V., Shah, C., Jäderling, F., Pappot, H., Ullén, A."Vinflunine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: A Nordic retrospective multicenter analysis Corrigendum in /10.3892/ol.2017.6082". Oncology Letters 12.2 (2016): 1293-1300.
Chicago
Holmsten, K., Hammer Dohn, L., Jensen, N. V., Shah, C., Jäderling, F., Pappot, H., Ullén, A."Vinflunine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: A Nordic retrospective multicenter analysis Corrigendum in /10.3892/ol.2017.6082". Oncology Letters 12, no. 2 (2016): 1293-1300. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4775