A Case
The case of a recently seen 55-year old male illustrates the challenges in making this decision. This otherwise healthy gentleman presented with gross hematuria and a large, amorphous renal mass involving the parenchyma of the kidney. The mass was biopsied and proven high-grade urothelial carcinoma in the left renal pelvis prior to our consultation. NAC was considered given that his disease was high-grade, the mass was known to be large on imaging (8cm), and he had adequate renal function to receive platinum based chemotherapy. However, he was experiencing flank pain so he elected to undergo RNU as soon as possible without chemotherapy prior.Robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and lymph node dissection revealed a 9cm urothelial carcinoma invading the pelvic and perinephric fat and replacing a large part of the renal parenchyma. There was no involvement of the (ten) lymph nodes from the hilar dissection and surgical margins were negative, giving him a final stage of T4N0M0. Given his high stage disease the patient was started on dose-dense MVAC six weeks post-operatively. Unfortunately, he was found to have metastatic disease not long after and his renal function also deteriorated to the point where he could no longer tolerate cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
This case highlights many of the difficulties in selecting treatment for high-risk UTUC, including:
- Could the patient have completed NAC and surgery or would he have progressed before RNU could be done?
- Would NAC prior to surgery would have prevented or delayed recurrence?
- Deteriorating renal function after RNU made administration of AC difficult
- Would renal function prior to surgery have been better & allowed a full NAC regimen to be administered?
- Did chemotherapy have any benefit for this patient or would his outcomes have been the same with RNU alone?
This blog will review the rationale and current evidence for both NAC and AC in the treatment of UTUC.
The Need for Systemic Therapy
Despite the lack of definitive evidence, there is a clear need for systemic treatment to improve survival of UTUC patients. 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) is 75% for all UTUC patients, however, it is only 35% for patients with locally advanced (pT2 or greater) or node positive disease [11,19,20,23]. Two large series have shown that relapse in UTUC patients following RNU is primarily distant as opposed to local [11,20]. This suggests that RNU provides UTUC patients with good local disease control, but that additional systemic therapy is necessary in many patients, particularly those with high-risk or stage disease. Based on similarities to urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder, NAC and AC, primarily cisplatin-based regimens, have been suggested as being potentially beneficial in the treatment of UTUC.Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
One of the primary arguments for NAC as opposed to AC in the treatment of high-risk UTUC is that renal function inevitably decreases following RNU. Cisplatin based chemotherapy is thought to be most effective in the treatment of UTUC but it requires adequate renal function (the standard cutoff is eGFR>60ml/min) and is also nephrotoxic making its administration problematic in UTUC patients particularly post-operatively. GFR has been found to decrease by an average of 24% or 13.9ml/min following RNU [24,25]. Even prior to surgery only about 50% of UTUC patients are eligible for full dose cisplatin using the standard cut-off, and patients over 70 years and those with pT3 or greater disease are even more likely to have poor pre-operative renal function [24].While many UTUC patients have poor renal function pre-operatively, RNU can only decrease after surgery making NAC a logical choice in this regard. Another argument for the use of NAC is the potential to downstage high-grade tumors and control clinically unapparent metastases prior to surgery. This may help prevent early recurrence after surgery in patients like the one in the case above.
Leow and colleagues recently reviewed all of the available literature regarding the use of NAC and AC in the treatment of UTUC [15]. There are five existing retrospective cohort studies that looked at the benefit of NAC and these included a total of 123 patients treated with NAC compared to 1724 patients who underwent primary RNU. Combining the data from two of these studies that looked a DSS survival, NAC showed a 60% survival benefit as compared to primary RNU [15]. One of these individual studies also showed significant benefits in overall survival (OS) after NAC in addition to benefit in DSS [14]. Additionally, four studies showed a complete pathologic response (T0N0 at time of surgery) in 13-28% of patients who received NAC as compared to none who were treated with primary RNU [3- 5, 17]. Radiographic response of tumor was also investigated in one of the studies and patients who underwent NAC showed an average 2cm or 50% decrease in size pre-operatively [3].
It is important to keep in mind that all of these studies had small treatment groups (43 was the largest) and selection criteria varied in terms of whether patients with clinically node positive disease were included and also how high-risk patients to receive NAC were chosen. Chemotherapy regimen was also variable with MVAC being the most common. Despite these shortcomings, there seems to be a benefit from NAC prior to RNU for patients who have high-risk disease and can tolerate chemotherapy.
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
The primary benefit of AC over NAC is that deferring chemotherapy until post-operatively allows definitive pathological staging prior to treatment and thus avoids potential overtreatment. UTUC is very difficult to stage preoperatively. Compared to urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, full thickness biopsy of the collecting system is more difficult to obtain without perforation and therefore staging is less accurate. Also, unlike the bladder, exam under anesthesia is not possible and imaging with CT and MRI has been found to understage UTUC [2,3]. Since it's difficult to stage patients pre-operatively, risk stratification for NAC becomes difficult leading to the possibility of unnecessary treatment and chemotherapy toxicity; this makes AC an attractive option.An additional argument for AC is that NAC may prevent some patients from ever getting RNU or make RNU more difficult [2,3]. Primary RNU verses after NAC have been compared with the only significant difference being operative time, with no differences in complications, EBL, or hospital stay [17]. However, the number of patients who are unable to undergo surgery after NAC has not been investigated and remains a potential concern. Similar to NAC, the goal of AC is to eradicate subclinical metastases and there by minimize recurrence and maximize survival.
Leow and colleagues review identified nine retrospective and one prospective cohort study of AC in the treatment of UTUC. These studies looked at a total of 482 patients treated with AC compared to 1300 who underwent RNU only [15]. Of these studies only three showed statistically significant benefits of AC, however, a meta-analysis particularly of the five studies where all patients received cisplatin-based therapy suggests a benefit. There was a 57% OS benefit and 51% disease free survival (DFS) benefit in patients who received AC based on studies in which all patients received cisplatin. DSS was not significant, and including the studies that used AC regimens other than exclusively cisplatin based showed no significant benefit [15].
The only prospective study of AC for UTUC looked at 36 patients with T3 or greater or node positive UTUC who received paclitaxel and carboplatin following RNU and found their 5 year OS to be 52% and DFS to be 40.2% [10]. This data is difficult to interpret since there is no control group for comparison and the sample size is small. Additionally, this study did not use cisplatin, which is believed to be the most effective therapy for these patients.
Again, these studies all had small cohorts (140 or less) who received AC and criteria varied in terms whether node positive and T2 patients were included. Chemotherapy regimens were also varied with significant benefit seen in patients who all received cisplatin based therapy, most commonly MVAC (15). However, there does seem to be a benefit of AC with cisplatin-based therapy in those patients whose renal function is sufficient to tolerate chemotherapy and whose surgical pathology shows locally advanced or node positive disease.
Conclusions
- No Level 1 Evidence exists regarding the use of NAC or AC for locally advance or node positive disease making treatment selection difficult
- Only evidence comes from small, heterogeneous retrospective cohort studies
- The existing evidence suggests a benefit for both NAC and AC over RNU alone in properly selected patients
- High risk features preoperatively or locally advance or node positive disease post-operatively
- Renal function able to tolerate cisplatin based therapy
- Good enough overall health to tolerate chemotherapy and desires treatment with chemotherapy despite risk of side effects
- There is no evidence for the selection of NAC verses AC so this has to be made taking into account the individual patient and their preferences
- The POUT trial is a randomized control trial of AC verses primary RNU for invasive or node positive UTUC that is currently underway and will hopefully provide better evidence in the near feature (estimated completion March 2017) (9)
References
1. Kim, TS, Oh, JH, Rhew HY. The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced upper tract urothelial cell carcinoma. Journal of Cancer. 2013. 4(8): 686-690.
2. Cordier, J, Guru, S, Christian, S, Tilki, D. Oncologic outcomes obtained after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of urothelial cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a review. World J Urol. 2013. 31: 77-82.
3. Matin, SF, Margulis, V, Kamat, A, Wood CG, Grossman, HB, Brown, GA, Dinney, CP, Milikan, R, Siefker-Radtke AO. Incidence of downstaging and complete remission after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2010. 116: 3127-34.
4. Youssef RF, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, Wood CG, Sagalowsky AI, Zigeuner R, et al.: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma with loco-regional nodal metastases: insights from the Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. BJU Int. 2011; 108: 1286-91.
5. Igawa M, Urakami S, Shiina H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced urothelial cancer of the upper urinary tract. Urol Int 1995;55:74–7.
6. O' Donnell, PH, Stadler, WM. The role of chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Advances in Urology. 2009. 10:1155.
7. Hellenthal, NJ et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for high risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma: results from the Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. Journal of Urology. 2009. 182: 900-906.
8. Kwak, C, Lee, SE, Jeong IG, Ku, JH. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary track. Urology. 2006. 68: 53-57.
9. Birtle AJ, Lewis R, Johnson M, Hall E. POUT Trial Management Group (TMG). Time to define an international standard of postoperative care for resected upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma (TCC)—opening of the peri-operative chemotherapy versus surveillance in upper tract urothelial cancer (POUT) trial. BJU int. 2012: 110: 919-21.
10. Bamias A, Deliveliotis C, Fountzilas G, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced carcino-ma of the upper urinary tract: a study by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2150–4.
11. Hall MC, Womack S, Sagalowsky AI, et al. Prognostic factors, recurrence, and survival in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a 30-year experience in 252 patients. Urology. 1998; 52: 594-601.
12. Sagalowksy, AI, Jarret, TW, Flanigan, RC. Urothelial Tumors of the Upper Urinary Tract and Ureter. In Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW eds, Campbell-Walsh Urology, 9th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2006: 1103–9
13. Ozsahin M, Zouhair A, Villa S, et al. Prognostic factors in urothelial renal pelvis and ureter tumours: a multicentre Rare Cancer Network study. Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35: 738-743.
14. Porten, S, Siefker-Radtake, AO, XiA, L, Margulis, V, Kamat, AM, Wood, CG, Jonasch, E, Dinney, CPN, Matin, SF. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 2014;120:1794–9.
15. Leow, JJ, Martin-Doyle, W, Fay, AP, Choueiri, TK, Chang, SL, Bellmunt, J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. European Urology, 2014. 66: 529-541.
16. Audenet, F, Yates, DR, Cussenot, O, Roupret, M. The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of urothelial cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UUC). Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2013. 31: 407-413.
17. Rajput, MZ, Kamat, AM, Clavell-Hernadaz, J, Siefker-Radtke, AO, Grossman, HB, Dinney, CPN, Matin, SF. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Urology. 2011. 78(1): 61-67.
18. Vassilakopoulou M, de la Motte Rouge T, Colin P, et al., French Collaborative National Database on UUT-UCC. Outcomes after ad- juvant chemotherapy in the treatment of high-risk urothelial car- cinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UC): results from a large multicenter collaborative study. Cancer 2011;117:5500–8.
19. Munoz JJ, Ellison LM. Upper tract urothelial neoplasms: incidence and survival during the last 2 decades. J Urol. 2000;164:1523–1525.
20. Margulis V, Shariat SF, Matin SF, et al., Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. The Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. Cancer 2009;115:1224–33.
21.. Soga N, Arima K, Sugimura Y. Adjuvant methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin, and cisplatin chemotherapy has potential to prevent recurrence of bladder tumors after surgical removal of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 2008;15:800–3.
22. Suzuki S, Shinohara N, Harabayashi T, Sato S, Abe T, Koyanagi T. Impact of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy on postoperative survival in patients with high-risk urothelial cancer. Int J Urol 2004;11:456–60.
23. Lee SE, Byun SS, Park YH, Chang IH, Kim YJ, Hong SK. Adjuvant chemotherapy in the management of pT3N0M0 transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Urol Int 2006;77:22–6.
24. Kaag MG, O'Malley RL, O'Malley P, et al. Changes in renal function following nephroureterectomy may affect the use of perioperative chemotherapy. Eur Urol 2010;58:581–7.
25. [ Yafi FA, Tanguay S, Rendon R, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for upper-tract urothelial carcinoma treated with nephroureterectomy: assessment of adequate renal function and influence on outcome. Urol Oncol 2014;32:31.e17–24.
26. Kawashima A, Nakai Y, Nakayama M, et al. The result of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized pT3 upper urinary tract carcinoma in a multi-institutional study. World J Urol 2012;30:701–6.