Brazilian consensus in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial carcinoma

ABSTRACT

Urothelial carcinoma is a frequent worldwide malignancy. Poor survival rates in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial carcinoma impose major challenges for management. We conducted a consensus meeting to discuss the optimal treatment for urothelial carcinoma in Brazil, which was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts consisting of oncologists, urologists and radiation therapists. This paper provides recommendations for perioperative treatment, metastatic disease management, bone directed therapy and genetic counselling in urothelial carcinoma based on the specialists opinions and was classified according to the level of evidence found in the medical literature according to the Oxford classification. The recommendations were based on the available treatments in Brazil to guide health professionals in the management of urothelial carcinoma in low- and middle- income countries with limited access to therapy.

RESUMO

O carcinoma urotelial é uma malignidade mundial frequente. As baixas taxas de sobrevivência no carcinoma urotelial músculo invasivo e metastático impõem grandes desafios em relação ao manejo. Realizamos uma reunião de consenso para discutir o tratamento ideal para o carcinoma urotelial no Brasil, desenvolvido por um painel de especialistas multidisciplinares composto por oncologistas, urologistas e radioterapeutas. Este artigo fornece recomendações para tratamento perioperatório, tratamento da doença metastática, terapia dirigida aos ossos e aconselhamento genético no carcinoma urotelial, com base nas opiniões dos especialistas e foi classificado de acordo com o nível de evidência encontrado na literatura médica, de acordo com a classificação de Oxford. As recomendações foram baseadas nos tratamentos disponíveis no Brasil para orientar os profissionais de saúde no tratamento do carcinoma urotelial em países de baixa e média renda com acesso limitado à terapia.

Keywords:

Urothelial carcinoma - Bladder cancer - Cystectomy - Chemotherapy - muscle-invasive - Metastatic urothelial carcinoma - Upper urinary tract carcinoma

Descritores:

Carcinoma urotelial - Câncer de bexiga - Cistectomia - Quimioterapia músculo invasiva - Carcinoma urotelial metastático - Carcinoma do trato urinário superior

INTRODUCTION

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) represents 90% of all urinary tract malignancies, with bladder cancer (BCa) being the most frequent among them.([1] [2]) BCa is the 8^th most common cancer worldwide in men.([3]) In Brazil, BCa is the 7^th most common cancer in men and 14^th in women, with an estimated 5-year prevalence of 118,293 cases, including both sexes regardless of age, and 6,690 new cases in men and 2,790 in women are expected annually between 2018 and 2019.([4] [5]) Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) corresponds to 5% to 10% of UC cases,([1] [2]) whereas 17% of patients present with concomitant BCa, and 15-75% of patients with UTUC demonstrate a risk for developing BCa within 5 years.([6])

BCa has an approximately 3-fold higher incidence in men than in women;([7]) however, disease-specific mortality is higher among women.([7] [8]) Tobacco smoking is a well-established risk factor for BCa that is directly related to addiction length and daily consumption.([9] [10]) Other risk factors include chemical exposure, bladder schistosomiasis, human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, chronic urinary tract infection, prior pelvic radiotherapy, use of cyclophosphamide and genetic factors.([11] [12] [13]) Dietary habits remain controversial.([12])

Most cases of BCa are categorized as non-muscle invasive disease. Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and metastatic disease correspond to approximately 25% of patients with BCa.([12]) It is estimated that 50% of MIBC patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) have local or distant disease recurrence, and 10-15% already have metastasis at the time of diagnosis.([14]) Local recurrence corresponds to 10-30% of cases, and distant metastases are more common.([14]) Additionally, relative survival has decreased over time.([15]) The 5- year survival rate of patients with distant metastasis is no greater than 5% to 10%.([2])

Considering the challenging management of UC, discussion among a multidisciplinary team of experts regarding available therapies is paramount to optimize disease management and patient care. Hence, the aim of this paper was to establish a Brazilian consensus for the management of locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma, focusing on BCa, to help not only Brazilian health professionals but also others from low- and middleincome countries who have equally limited access to treatment.

METHODS

A consensus meeting was organized by The Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC), the Latin American Cooperative Oncology GroupGenitourinary section (LACOG- GU), the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) and the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (SBRT), and the meeting was held on April 26, 2019, in São Paulo, Brazil.

A multidisciplinary panel of experts composed of clinical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists developed a questionnaire with multiplechoice answers, voted and debated the optimal management recommendations for UC, considering the best practice available in this country.

Questions were presented and voted. Answers reaching a total vote rate of at least 75% were considered consensus. Those that were not considered consensus were redisplayed, discussed and voted again. The most highly voted answer for this second round was considered consensus if it reached at least 75% of the votes or was considered a recommendation if less than this cutoff. Participants had the option to abstain voting, and they were not considered in the final results. The questionnaire with the results can be found in the additional file of this paper.

All the chosen answers were confronted with medical literature and categorized according to the level of evidence (LE) and grade of recommendation (GR), adapted from the 2009 Oxford Center for EvidenceBased Medicine Levels of Medicine classification, as shown in[Table 1] .([16])

Table 1 Level of evidence and grade of recommendation for therapy and prevention, adapted for the Oxford classification.([16])

Level of evidence
1a	Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of randomized controlled trials.
1b	Individual randomized controlled trials (with narrow confidence intervals).
1c	All or none randomized controlled trials.
2a	Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of cohort studies.
2b	Individual cohort study or low-quality randomized controlled trials (e.g., <80% follow-up).
2c	"Outcomes" research; ecological studies.
3a	Systematic review (with homogeneity) of case-control studies.
3b	Individual case-control study.
4	Case-series (and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies).
5	Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles".
Grade of recommendation
A	Consistent level 1 studies.
B	Consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies.
C	Level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies.
D	Level 5 evidence or troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level.

RESULTS

Genetic counselling in urothelial carcinoma

Tobacco, advanced age, chemical exposure, HPV infection, bladder schistosomiasis, chronic urinary tract infection, and pelvic radiotherapy are wellknown risk factors for UC.([11] [12] [13] [17]) Genetic counseling is recommended in selected non-MIBC and MIBC patients but especially for those with UTUC presenting risk factors with less than 50-years-old, for women and/or patients without history of tobacco exposure (consensus, LE:5 GR:D).

Genetic counselling may identify patients with Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant genetic disorder associated with the development of malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract, endometrium, ovary, central nervous system, skin and UTUC.([18]) For patients with a personal or family history of endometrial and/or gastrointestinal tract polyps, genetic counselling is recommended for most of them (recommendation, LE:5 GR:D), but it is not mandatory. On the other hand, patients with UC and a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and patients with a personal or family history of endometrial cancer (especially the endometrioid subtype) and/or colorectal cancer (especially the mucinous subtype) as well as their families should undergo genetic evaluation (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). The location of UTUC in patients with Lynch syndrome is usually the ureter and renal pelvis. The risk estimates of developing urinary cancers may vary depending on sex and the gene involved, with up to 22% of cancers in female patients presenting with MSH6 mutations.([19])

Treatment selection

Cisplatin

Cisplatin was the first metal-based chemotherapy agent and has been widely used ever since.([20]) The use of cisplatin in chemotherapy doubles the overall survival (OS) rates of patients with advanced UC([21]) (21) and is the first-line treatment for metastatic patients.([11]) Cisplatin use may be limited by its toxicity, particularly its nephrotoxicity. Renal function should be evaluated before drug administration. The glomerular filtration rate limit to consider the patient eligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in full dose is 50mL/min, calculated with Cockroft-Gault equation (recommendation, LE: 1b GR:B). Although cisplatin eligibility criteria of 50mL/min - 60mL/min have been documented in the literature, part of the panel considered that this criterion could be reevaluated depending on the clinical situation. Cisplatin should not be used in patients with performance 2 or higher, hearing loss (grade II or higher), clinically significant peripheral neuropathy (grade II or higher), or congestive heart failure class III or worse (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). According to these criteria, in general, less than 50% of patients are eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy.([22] [23]) Although the creatinine clearance (CrCl) limit typically defined for cisplatin use is =60mL/min in clinical trials,([24] [25] [26]) a CrCl cutoff of 50mL/min appears to be safe, as reported in the POUT trial,([27]) and should be considered in clinical practice, especially in patients with potentially curative disease or with the goal of improved survival. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in MIBC

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is indicated in all non-metastatic patients in the treatment of MIBC who are candidates for cisplatin (recommendation, LE:1a GR:A), followed by RC. Lymphadenectomy should be performed with the RC in all patients with localized bladder UC T2-T4a, regardless of previous lymph node status (consensus, LE:2b GR: B). The preferred regimen of NAC is dose dense methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) (recommendation, LE:2b GR: B).

Cisplatin-based NAC in MIBC patients prior to cystectomy significantly improves oncological outcomes, with an absolute OS benefit of approximately 6.5%.([28] [29]) Moreover, NAC is associated with an improvement in survival of 5% compared to definitive local therapy alone, with a median survival ranging from 46 months with surgery alone to 77 months with combined therapy,([30] [31]) a 9% disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 5-years,([30]) and an increase in 10-years survival from 30% to 36%.([32]) Cisplatin should not be used as a single agent in chemotherapy because it does not show significant improvement in survival.([30] [33]) NAC based on methotrexate, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (MVAC) increases survival;([31] [32] [34]) however, MVAC presents high toxicity and a long treatment period. Dose dense MVAC offers a safer profile, shorter treatment duration (12 weeks with classic MVAC versus 6 to 8 weeks for dose dense), efficacy in disease downstaging([35] [36] [37]) and significant higher complete response rate compared to gemcitabine/ cisplatin and gemcitabine-carboplatin.([37])

Dose-dense gemcitabine/cisplatin also demonstrates benefits as a neoadjuvant therapy, with a downstaging pathologic response rate in 57% of patients, improving recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS.([38]) Unfortunately, the available data demonstrate that NAC has been underutilized in eligible patients despite being considered the standard of care for MIBC and is able to promote disease downstaging, eradicate micrometastasis, and improve survival.([39]) A high-volume tertiary centre reported that only 17% of eligible patients received NAC, which can be explained by the patient's preference, the lack of signs of progression and, potentially, the surgeon's preference not to delay cystectomy.([40])

The standard of care in MIBC is NAC followed by RC. Lymphadenectomy provides accurate staging and provides prognosis because lymph node-positive disease is related to higher recurrence, especially in distant sites, and worse overall survival compared to no lymph node involvement.([41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]) Additionally, lymphadenectomy may provide a benefit in terms of survival for all patients with lymph node-positive and node-negative disease.([47]) The risk of lymph node metastasis is significant in MIBC patients, estimated in up to 25% of patients at the time of cystectomy.([48])

NAC is not recommended for patients undergoing bladder preservation therapy or those who are not candidates for cisplatin (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). There is not enough evidence to support carboplatin as a neoadjuvant therapy for patients unfit for cisplatin. Until clear evidence of benefits becomes available, carboplatin-based regimens should not be used for NAC outside clinical trials.([49]) In patients with localized/locally advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder who receive NAC with a cisplatinbased regimen followed by cystectomy and who present with an unsatisfactory pathologic response, we recommend follow-up (consensus, LE:2b GR:B). The evidence for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in this population is still limited. The results from an observational study showed a 5-month OS benefit in a cohort of pT3/T4 and/or pN+ patients with adverse pathologic features after NAC and RC; however, the chemotherapy regimen administered was not reported.([50])

Patients not willing to undergo RC and patients ineligible for surgery could benefit from bladder preservation therapy depending on the tumour location and size, tumour extension, presence of tumour associated hydronephrosis, and status of in situ carcinoma.([51]) They should be informed of the high risk of local recurrence. Chemoradiation preceded by maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) is the mainstay treatment for these selected patients.([52]) Cisplatin-eligible patients should receive cisplatin with radiation therapy (consensus, LE:1c GR:A) without previous NAC, as this treatment without NAC is associated with a 5-year and 10-year OS of 57% and 36%, respectively.([53]) Low-dose gemcitabine could be used in patients unfit for cisplatin in preservation therapy (consensus, LE:1c GR:A). In a phase II trial, 82% of patients receiving low-dose gemcitabine associated with radiotherapy achieved 3-year cancer-specific survival, and the OS was 75%.([54]) In a retrospective analysis, treatment with low-dose gemcitabine and radiotherapy demonstrated local progressionfree survival (PFS), DSS and OS rates comparable to cisplatin-based regimens in MIBC patients who were inoperable due to comorbidities with a feasible toxicity profile.([55]) We do not routinely recommend 5-fluorouracil with mitomycin-C([56]) in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin in Brazil since mitomycin is not available in the country.

Adjuvant treatment should be used in all patients with stage > pT2N0 that are eligible for cisplatin (consensus, LE:2a GR: B) and that not received NAC. In patients pT3-4, pN+, eligible for cisplatin who did not receive NAC, we recommend adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with gemcitabine and cisplatin (recommendation, LE: 1c GR: A). AC could benefit patients who did not receive NAC, but these patients are usually cisplatinbased chemotherapy unfit because of renal function decline.([22] [57]) Patients with advanced pathologic stage (= T3) and nodal involvement or with positive surgical margins are the most likely to benefit, showing longer OS or significant DFS with adjuvant therapy.([58] [59] [60]) There is no consensus in the best regimen for AC in MIBC. Limited evidence showed that adjuvant therapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin and paclitaxel significant prolong OS, improving DFS and disease specific survival (DSS) compared to no treatment.([61]) Cisplatin-based regimens in AC show a trend to improve OS with 20 to 25% decrease in mortality risk compared with control, but more robust studies are necessary to confirm these findings.([30] [43] [62]) There is no recommendation for the routine use of AC for patients with pathologic staging T2N0 after cystectomy, since these patients were not included in most of the adjuvant trials and have an overall high OS.

Patients ineligible for cisplatin with an indication of adjuvant therapy correspond to more than 40% of patients aged 70 years or older.([22]) Although the recommendation of adjuvant carboplatin and gemcitabine reached consensus in the multidisciplinary voting (consensus, LE:2b GR: B), it should be highlighted that there is no strong evidence based on phase III trials to support this regimen in the adjuvant setting, and this regimen in patients with MIBC may be considered in highly selected cases when chemotherapy is considered the most appropriate treatment and when the patient is “unfit” for cisplatin. Evidence for carboplatin and gemcitabine as adjuvant treatments is limited and based on exploratory data in UTUC. From the subgroup analysis of a cohort in which 20% of patients received carboplatin and gemcitabine as AC, the median survival rate was similar to the rate in those receiving cisplatin-based therapy.([63])

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in UTUC

Limited evidence related to the treatment of UTUC is available. Radical nephroureterectomy is the standard treatment, followed by AC and surveillance. The POUT trial showed that AC significantly improved DFS and metastasis-free survival in patients with UTUC compared with only surveillance, with a trend towards an improvement in OS.([27]) Thus, AC is indicated in locally advanced UTUC patients (recommendation, LE:1b GR:A), and gemcitabine-cisplatin is the recommended regimen for patients fit for cisplatin (consensus, LE:1b GR:A). Patients who are cisplatinineligible may benefit from adjuvant carboplatin and gemcitabine (consensus, LE:1b GR:A). Evidence of carboplatin and gemcitabine from the POUT trial showed a trend towards a clinical benefit, although it did not reach statistical significance.([27])

Considering NAC in UTUC, the data are very limited. Retrospective analyses have shown a low mortality risk in the treated group; with a significant improvement in OS and DFS,([64]) and 14% of patients demonstrate complete remission.([65]) There is not enough evidence to demonstrate a preference for one cisplatin-based chemotherapy over another. For patients eligible for cisplatin, we recommend gemcitabine and cisplatin (recommendation, LE:5 GR:D). MVAC dose dense could also be used, as reported in a study including 44 bladder/urethral carcinoma patients and 16 UTUC patients, showing a 2-year OS in 82% of patients and 78% DFS.([66]) NAC is not recommended for patients with UTUC ineligibles to cisplatin (consensus, LE: 5 GR: D), because carboplatin or any other agent has not shown benefit in this indication.

Treatment of metastatic disease

First-line treatment

Cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine is the most recommended option for cisplatin-eligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) as a first-line treatment, regardless of PD-L1 expression (consensus, LE:1b GR:B). In patients unfit for cisplatin who are PD-L1 negative or have unknown status, the most recommended treatment option for patients with mUC in terms of first-line treatment is carboplatin with gemcitabine (consensus, LE:1b GR:A). In patients unfit for cisplatin who are PD-L1 positive, the option is immunotherapy (consensus, LE:1c GR: A) with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab because they are the only drugs that have been involved in clinical studies and have been approved as first-line treatments,([67] [68]) with no preference between them (recommendation, LE:5 GR:D).

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for mUC for more than 30 years. Cisplatin and gemcitabine are superior to MVAC in terms of the pathological complete response in metastatic patients,([65]) with a better safety profile but with no difference in OS, DSS, or DFS.([66] [69]) As mentioned previously, cisplatin should not be used as a single agent since it is inferior to MVAC in terms of response rate, PFS and OS.([70])

Carboplatin with gemcitabine shows no difference compared to methotrexate with carboplatin and vinblastine (M-CAVI) in terms of OS (9.3 months versus 8.1 months, respectively), but it has an improved safety profile.([71]) Results from noncomparative studies with advanced patients who are unfit for cisplatin and who were treated with carboplatin-based therapy showed an OS between 7 and 16 months.([72] [73] [74] [75] [76])

There is no evidence that immunotherapy is superior to chemotherapy in terms of first-line therapy for patients unfit for cisplatin. When indicated, there is no preference between atezolizumab and pembrolizumab; both showed clinical benefits for this indication.([76] [77]) In the IMvigor 210 study,([67]) atezolizumab showed minimal differences in the objective response rate (ORR) between PD-L1-positive and PD-L1negative patients (28% versus 20%, respectively). However, in the KEYNOTE-052 study, treatment with pembrolizumab had superior results in PD-L1positive patients (ORR: 51% versus 23% in PD-L1negative patients).([68]) Phase III studies comparing chemotherapy, immunotherapy and associated immunotherapy with chemotherapy are ongoing, and results are expected soon and may therefore change the scenario of first-line UC treatment.([78] [79] [80] [81])

Biomarkers in mUC

To date, the role of tissue or circulating biomarkers in UC is unclear. The material for analysis of PD-L1 and FGFR should be preferably the most recent possible; however, there is no formal recommendation for a new biopsy (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). For the treatment of naïve cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC, the analysis of PD-L1 expression is indicated to guide firstline therapy (consensus, LE:1c GR: A). The evaluation of FGFR mutations is indicated for all patients after progression with first-line treatment (consensus, LE:1c GR:A). PD-L1 is considered positive when expression in tumor cells are >5% using Ventana-sp142 kit, or =10 in the Combined Positive Score (CPS, tumor + infiltrate cells) using Dako-22C3 kit (consensus, LE:5 GR: D).

FGFR 3 is a tyrosine kinase receptor that regulates many cellular processes, such as growth, differentiation, and angiogenesis. It was identified as an oncogene, and its dysregulation is related to urothelial BCa.([77]) Treatment targeting FGRF can be considered for patients with first-line treatment failure. The literature demonstrates preliminary and conflicting results regarding the immunotherapy response in patients with FGFR mutations, as there were shown to be fewer responders to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in one post hoc analysis;([82]) there was no difference in response rate, PFS or OS according to FGFR 3 mutation or gene expression with nivolumab treatment,([83]) and there was up to a 40.4% response rate with erdafitinib treatment.([84]) Erdafitinib has recently been approved by Brazilian authorities (ANVISA).([85])

Second-line treatment

The preferential second-line treatment after chemotherapy failure with platinum- based therapy as a first-line treatment, regardless of FGFR status, is immunotherapy (consensus, LE:1b GR:A). Pembrolizumab is the preferred immunotherapy (consensus, LE:1b GR:A) because it is the only one with a phase III study showing significant benefit, with a longer OS (10.3 months versus 7.4 months with chemotherapy)([86]) and quality of life improvements.([87]) Immunotherapy offers an additional option for patients progressing after first-line treatment. Unlike first-line therapy, the response to immunotherapy as a second-line therapy does not depend on the expression of PD-L1. In the IMvigor211 study, the OS of atezolizumab was not different from that of chemotherapy (vinflunine, paclitaxel and docetaxel) but had a better safety profile.([88]) Durvalumab has an ORR of 17%, PFS of 1.5 months and OS of 18.2 months, with a 1-year OS rate of 55%.([89]) Nivolumab demonstrated an OS of 7 months,([90]) and all of these results occurred regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Patients with disease progression following platinumbased chemotherapy and immunotherapy, without FGFR mutation, should be treated with vinflunine (recommendation, LE: 1b GR:A), as it was shown to be superior to best supportive care alone; there was a significantly longer OS, and the mortality risk decreased by 23%.([91])

The treatment of choice indicated for patients with disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy, with FGFR mutation, is erdafitinib if available (consensus, LE:4 GR:C). If not available, third-line treatment with chemotherapy (vinflunine or paclitaxel) may be considered. This recommendation is based on the following results of a phase II trial: of 99 patients receiving erdafitinib, 3% showed a complete response, and 37% showed a partial response; the PFS was 5.5 months, and the OS was 13.8 months.([92]) A phase III trial is ongoing to evaluate erdafitinib versus chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine) or pembrolizumab in patients with FGFR mutations who progressed on or after first-line systemic therapy.([93])

Follow-up

During and after systemic therapy (chemotherapy, target therapy/immunotherapy) for mUC, the follow-up for evaluation of disease response and progression should be individualized, depending on each case (patient conditions, treatment, therapeutic response and evolution, the protocol that was chosen for treatment, etc.) (consensus, LE:5 GR:D) and the chosen therapy, always taking into account what is recommended in studies of indicated therapy.

Bone therapy

Bone is a common local for metastasis in mUC patients.([94]) The occurrence of bone metastasis is associated with metastasis to the brain, liver or lungs; a high primary tumour stage; a high regional lymph node stage; and poorly differentiated tumours.([95]) Bone metastasis compromises a patient's quality of life by causing pain and pathologic fractures. It decreases treatment response and OS.([96])

Bone-modifying agents (zoledronic acid, denosumab) should be prescribed for all patients with UC and bone metastases (recommendation, LE:5 GR:D). Calcium and vitamin D supplementation should also be recommended (consensus, LE:5 GR:D) because bone- modifying agents, especially denosumab, increase the risk of hypocalcaemia.([97]) Denosumab should be the treatment of choice, including for patients with impaired renal function (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). We recommend denosumab at a dose of 120mg, subcutaneously, every 4 weeks (consensus, LE:5 GR:D), and for patients taking zoledronic acid, the dose and frequency recommended are 4mg, intravenously, every 4 weeks (consensus, LE:5 GR:D). The duration of therapy with bone-modifying agents should be up to 24 months (recommendation, LE:5 GR:D). There is no evidence of benefit with prolonged use in mUC, as reported in breast and prostate cancer patients.

Extrapolating data from breast cancer, prostate cancer and other solid tumours, denosumab is superior to zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events, and it has the advantage of not needing to adjust the dose according to renal function.([98]) Subgroup analysis evaluating only genitourinary cancers (1901 prostate, 155 renal, 63 bladder, and 9 transitional cell patients) confirmed the result, with a significant delay in the occurrence of skeletal-related events in 4 months compared to zoledronic acid.([99])

For patients with bone metastases and who are undergoing therapy with bone- modifying agents that have a bony event, we recommend treating the event and proceeding with bone-modifying agents (consensus, LE:5 GR:D), as they delay or prevent skeletal related events such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, bone surgery or radiation.([100])

Patients should have access to dental care before treatment with bone-modifying agents and should have a follow-up in order to avoid invasive procedures during treatment.([101]) For patients who have a history of dental disturbances (tooth extraction, periodontal disease or extraction and dental implants), we recommend the use of bone-modifying agents only after dental evaluation/treatment (consensus, LE:5 GR:D), because dental extraction increases the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw by up to 14.8%.([102]) In patients having or who had osteonecrosis of the jaw, we do not recommend the use of bone-modifying agents (consensus, LE:5 GR:D).

CONCLUSION

This multidisciplinary meeting consensus discussed and voted on important and clinically relevant questions to guide the management of patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. All answers took into account the availability of treatment in Brazil and were supported by the highest level of evidence found in the medical literature. These recommendations are useful not only in Brazil but also for professionals in other low- and middle-income countries, where there is limited access to treatment.

Conflicts of interest

Andrey Soares: Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Pierre- Fabre, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Events Sponsorship: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen. Advisory Board: Astellas, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer. Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb. Icaro Carvalho: Speaker Fee: AstraZeneca. Diogo Assed Bastos: Research Funding: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Honoraria/Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer. Diogo Augusto Rodrigues da Rosa: Research Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Roche, Amgen, Dr Reddy's, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ipsen. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Ipsen. Advisory Board: Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ipsen. Fernando Cotait Maluf: Research Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen. Speaker Fee: Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer. Advisory Board: Sanofi, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Novartis, Roche. Ari Adamy Junior: Speaker Fee: Janssen, Astellas. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, Astellas. Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas. Daher Chade: none. Luis Felipe Piovesan: none. Allison Bruno Barcelos Borges: none. Arthur Acciolly: Speaker Fee: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Advisory Board: AstraZeneca. Lucas Nogueira: Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Events Sponsorship: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Advisory Board: Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The authors would like to thank the panellists who voted and discussed the questions described in this manuscript: Dr Adriano Silva, Dr Aluizio Gonçalves da Fonseca, Dr André Dekee Sasse, Dr André Fay, Dr Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo, Dr Daniel Herchenhorn, Dr Eduardo Franco Carvalhal, Dr Evanius Wierman, Dr Fabio Faustino, Dr Fabio Roberto Kater, Dr Fabio Shutz, Dr Fernando Nunes, Dr Fernando Vidigal, Dr Franz Santos de Campos, Dr Gilberto Laurino Almeida, Dr Giovani Thomaz Pioner, Dr Gustavo Franco Carvalhal, Dr José Augusto Rinck, Dr José de Ribamar Rodrigues Calixto, Dr Karine Trindade, Dr Leonardo Atem, Dr Manuel Maia Caitano, Dr Marcelo Wroclawski, Dr Marcus Vinícius Sadi, Dr Renato Beluco Corradi Fonseca, Dr Ricardo de Lima Favaretto, Dr Rodolfo Borges dos Reis, Dr Romolo Guida Junior, Dr Sandro Cavallero, Dr Vinícius Carrera, Dr Volney Soares and Dr Wilson José de Almeida Junior.

The authors would also like to thank Dr Mariana Matos, MD, for the writing assistance on behalf of Springer Healthcare. This manuscript was prepared according to the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals-Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: the GPP3 Guidelines.

• REFERENCES

• Miyazaki J, Nishiyama H.. Epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma. Int J Urol 2017; Oct; 24 (10) 730-734
• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A.. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; Jan; 69 (01) 7-34
• Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M. et al Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019; Apr; 144 (08) 1941-1953
• World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer Today - Data visualization tools for exploring the global cancer burden in 2018 - GLOBOCAN 2018. Genebra: WHO; 2018. access 2019 May 18 Available from: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
• Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA). Estimativa 2018: incidência de câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): INCA; 2017. access 2019 Jun 30 Available from: http://www1.inca.gov.br/estimativa/2018/estimativa-2018.pdf
• Kang CH, Yu TJ, Hsieh HH, Yang JW, Shu K, Huang CC. et al The development of bladder tumors and contralateral upper urinary tract tumors after primary transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Cancer 2003; 98 (08) 1620-1626
• Antoni S, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Znaor A, Jemal A, Bray F. Bladder cancer incidence and mortality: a global overview and recent trends. Eur Urol 2017; Jan; 71 (01) 96-108
• Dobruch J, Daneshmand S, Fisch M, Lotan Y, Noon AP, Resnick MJ. et al Gender and bladder cancer: a collaborative review of etiology, biology, and outcomes. Eur Urol 2016; 69 (02) 300-310
• Freedman ND, Silverman DT, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Abnet CC. Association between smoking and risk of bladder cancer among men and women. JAMA 2011; 306 (07) 737-745
• Brennan P, Bogillot O, Cordier S, Greiser E, Schill W, Vineis P. et al Cigarette smoking and bladder cancer in men: a pooled analysis of 11 case-control studies. Int J Cancer 2000; 86 (02) 289-294
• Witjes JA, Lebret T, Compérat EM, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Bruins HM. et al Updated 2016 EAU Guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 71 (03) 462-475
• Burger M, Catto JW, Dalbagni G, Grossman HB, Herr H, Karakiewicz P. et al Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2013; Feb; 63 (02) 234-241
• Heidegger I, Borena W, Pichler R. The role of human papilloma virus in urological malignancies. Anticancer Res 2015; May; 35 (05) 2513-2519
• Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Bangs R, Boorjian SA, Buyyounouski MK. et al NCCN Guidelines Insights: bladder cancer, version 5.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16 (09) 1041-1053
• Shah BK, Mandal R. Survival trends in metastatic bladder cancer in the United States: a population based study. J Can Res Ther 2015; Jan/Mar; 11 (01) 124-128
• Philips B, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Hynes B, Dawes M.. Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine - levels of evidence (March 2009). 2009 access 2019 Apr 28 Available from: http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-basedmedicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
• Van der Post RS, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Bodmer D. et al Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 2010; Jul; 47 (07) 464-470
• Duraturo F, Liccardo R, De Rosa M, Izzo P. Genetics, diagnosis and treatment of Lynch syndrome: old lessons and current challenges. Oncol Lett 2019; Mar; 17 (03) 3048-3054
• Kohlmann W, Gruber SB. Lynch syndrome. Synonyms: HNPCC, Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colon Cancer. Washington, DC: GeneReviews; 2004. access 2019 Apr 28 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1211
• Ghosh S.. Cisplatin: the first metal based anticancer drug. Bioorg Chem 2019; Jul; 88: 102925
• de Vos FY, de Wit R. Choosing chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2010; Nov; 2 (06) 381-388
• Dash A, Galsky MD, Vickers AJ, Serio AM, Koppie TM, Dalbagni G. et al Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatinbased chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 2006; Aug; 107 (03) 506-513
• Sonpavde G, Galsky MD, Latini D, Chen GJ. Cisplatin-ineligible and chemotherapyineligible patients should be the focus of new drug development in patients with advanced bladder cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2014; Apr; 12 (02) 71-73
• Crona DJ, Faso A, Nishijima TF, McGraw KA, Galsky MD, Milowsky MI. A systematic review of strategies to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Oncologist 2017; 22 (05) 609-619
• Galsky MD, Chen GJ, Oh WK, Bellmunt J, Roth BJ, Petrioli R. et al Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2012; Feb; 23 (02) 406-410
• Galsky MD, Hahn NM, Rosenberg J, Sonpavde G, Hutson T, Oh WK. et al Treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer “unfit” for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2011; Jun; 29 (17) 2432-2438
• Birtle AJ, Chester JD, Jones RJ, Johnson M, Hill M, Bryan RT. et al Results of POUT: a phase III randomized trial of perioperative chemotherapy versus surveillance in upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). J Clin Oncol 2018; Feb; 36 (Suppl 6): 407
• Yin M, Joshi M, Meijer RP, Glantz M, Holder S, Harvey HA. et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and two-step meta-analysis. Oncologist 2016; Jun; 21 (06) 708-715
• Winquist E, Kirchner TS, Segal R, Chin J, Lukka H. Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2004; Feb; 171 (2 Pt 1): 561-569
• Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data advanced bladder cancer (ABC) meta-analysis collaboration. Eur Urol 2005; Aug; 48 (02) 202-205 discussion:205-6
• Grossman HB, Natale RB, Tangen CM, Speights VO, Vogelzang NJ, Trump DL. et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; Aug; 349 (09) 859-866
• International Collaboration of Trialists, Medical Research Council Advanced Bladder Cancer Working Party (now the National Cancer Research Institute Bladder Cancer Clinical Studies Group), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genito- Urinary Tract Cancer Group. International phase III trial assessing neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of the BA06 30894 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; Jun; 29 (16) 2171-2177
• Martinez-Piñeiro JA, Martin MG, Arocena F, Flores N, Roncero CR, Portillo JA. et al Neoadjuvant cisplatin chemotherapy before radical cystectomy in invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a prospective randomized phase III study. J Urol 1995; MAr; 153 (3 Pt 2): 964-973
• Soloway MS, Ishikawa S, Taylor T, Ezell G. M-VAC or MVC for the treatment of advanced transitional cell carcinoma: metastatic, induction, and adjuvant. J Surg Oncol Suppl 1989; 1: 40-45
• Van de Putte EE, Mertens LS, Meijer RP, Van Der Heijden MS, Bex A, Van Der Poel HG. et al Neoadjuvant induction dose-dense MVAC for muscle invasive bladder cancer: efficacy and safety compared with classic MVAC and gemcitabine/ cisplatin. World J Urol 2016; 34 (02) 157-162
• Plimack ER, Hoffman-Censits JH, Viterbo R, Trabulsi EJ, Ross EA, Greenberg RE. et al Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin is safe, effective, and efficient neoadjuvant treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study with molecular correlates of response and toxicity. J Clin Oncol 2014; Jun; 32 (18) 1895-1901
• Peyton CC, Tang D, Reich RR, Azizi M, Chipollini J, Pow-Sang JM. et al Downstaging and survival outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens among patients treated with cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018; Nov; 4 (11) 1535-1542
• Iyer G, Balar AV, Milowsky MI, Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Donat SM. et al Multicenter prospective phase II trial of neoadjuvant dose-dense gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; Jul; 36 (19) 1949-1956
• Tully CM, Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Zabor EC, Herr HW, Donat SM. et al Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) plus radical cystectomy-pelvic lymph node dissection (RC- PLND) for patients (pts) with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): Assessing impacts of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and the PLND. J Clin Oncol 2014; Feb; 32 (4 Suppl 1): 355
• Raj GV, Karavadia S, Schlomer B, Arriaga Y, Lotan Y, Sagalowsky A. et al Contemporary use of perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with muscle- invasive bladder cancer. Cancer 2011; Jan; 117 (02) 276-282
• Bruins HM, Huang GJ, Cai J, Skinner DG, Stein JP, Penson DF. Clinical outcomes and recurrence predictors of lymph node positive urothelial cancer after cystectomy. J Urol 2009; 182 (05) 2182-2187
• Karl A, Carroll PR, Gschwend JE, Knüchel R, Montorsi F, Stief CG. et al The impact of lymphadenectomy and lymph node metastasis on the outcomes of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2009; Apr; 55 (04) 826-835
• Vale CL. Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC). Adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer (individual patient data). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; Apr; (02) CD006018
• Herr HW. Superiority of ratio based lymph node staging for bladder cancer. J Urol 2003; Mar; 169 (03) 943-945
• Konety BR, Joslyn SA, O'Donnell MA. Extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy and its impact on outcome in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer: analysis of data from the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data base. J Urol 2003; Mar; 169 (03) 946-950
• Vieweg J, Gschwend JE, Herr HW, Fair WR. The impact of primary stage on survival in patients with lymph node positive bladder cancer. J Urol 1999; Jan; 161 (01) 72-76
• Herr HW, Faulkner JR, Grossman HB, Natale RB, White RV, Sarosdy MF. et al Surgical factors influence bladder cancer outcomes: a cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 2004; Jul; 22 (14) 2781-2789
• Quek ML, Sanderson KM, Daneshmand S, Stein JP. The importance of an extended lymphadenectomy in the management of high-grade invasive bladder cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2004; 4 (06) 1007-1016
• Koshkin VS, Grivas P. Perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: the importance of multidisciplinary management for evidence-based practice and transformative research. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7 (03) 504-507
• Seisen T, Jamzadeh A, Leow JJ, Rouprêt M, Cole AP, Lipsitz SR. et al Adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation for patients with adverse pathologic features at radical cystectomy previously treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol 2018; Feb; 4 (02) 225-229
• Hanna KS. Updates and novel treatments in urothelial carcinoma. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2019; Apr; 25 (03) 648-656
• Gakis G, Efstathiou J, Lerner SP, Cookson MS, Keegan KA, Guru KA. et al ICUD-EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012: radical cystectomy and bladder preservation for muscleinvasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 2013; Jan; 63 (01) 45-57
• Mak RH, Hunt D, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Tester WJ, Hagan MP. et al Long-term outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer after selective bladder-preserving combinedmodality therapy: a pooled analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocols 8802, 8903, 9506, 9706, 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol 2014; Dec; 32 (34) 3801-3809
• Choudhury A, Swindell R, Logue JP, Elliott PA, Livsey JE, Wise M. et al Phase II study of conformal hypofractionated radiotherapy with concurrent gemcitabine in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; Feb; 29 (06) 733-738
• Atasoy BM, Dane F, Cetin IA, Ozgen Z, Kefeli AU, Ibrahimov R. et al Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with low dose weekly gemcitabine in medically inoperable muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol 2014; Jan; 16 (01) 91-95
• James ND, Hussain SA, Hall E, Jenkins P, Tremlett J, Rawlings C. et al Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (16) 1477-1488
• Canter D, Viterbo R, Kutikov A, Wong YN, Plimack E, Zhu F. et al Baseline renal function status limits patient eligibility to receive perioperative chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer and is minimally affected by radical cystectomy. Urology 2011; Jan; 77 (01) 160-165
• Haque W, Lewis GD, Verma V, Darcourt JG, Butler EB, Teh BS. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced bladder cancer. Acta Oncol 2018; 57 (04) 509-515
• Svatek RS, Shariat SF, Lasky RE, Skinner EC, Novara G, Lerner SP. et al The effectiveness of off-protocol adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Clin Cancer Res 2010; Sep; 16 (17) 4461-4467
• Logothetis CJ, Johnson DE, Chong C, Dexeus FH, Sella A, Ogden S. et al Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin chemotherapy for bladder cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 1988; Oct; 6 (10) 1590-1596
• Paz-Ares LG, Solsona E, Esteban E, Saez A, Gonzalez-Larriba J, Hevia AAM. et al Randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant paclitaxel/ gemcitabine/cisplatin (PGC) to observation in patients with resected invasive bladder cancer: results of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) 99/01 study. J Clin Oncol 2016; 28 (18 Suppl 1): LBA4518
• Leow JJ, Martin-Doyle W, Rajagopal PS, Patel CG, Anderson EM, Rothman AT. et al Adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer: a 2013 updated systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized trials. Eur Urol 2014; Jul; 66 (01) 42-54
• Pouessel D, Bastuji-Garin S, Houédé N, Vordos D, Loriot Y, Chevreau C. et al Adjuvant chemotherapy after radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer: outcome and prognostic factors for survival in a French multicenter, contemporary cohort. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; Feb; 15 (01) e45-e52
• Porten S, Siefker-Radtke AO, Xiao L, Margulis V, Kamat AM, Wood CG. et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 2014; Jun; 120 (12) 1794-1799
• Matin SF, Margulis V, Kamat A, Wood CG, Grossman HB, Brown GA. et al Incidence of downstaging and complete remission after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. Cancer 2010; Jul; 116 (13) 3127-3134
• Yu C, Hequn C, Jinbo C, Feng Z, Xiongbing Z, Jian D. Gemcitabine/cisplatin versus methotrexate/ vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin for muscleinvasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; Oct/ Dec; 14 (06) 1260-1265
• Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE, Powles T, Petrylak DP, Bellmunt J. et al Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2017; Jan; 389 (10064): 67-76
• Balar AV, Castellano D, O'Donnell PH, Grivas P, Vuky J, Powles T. et al First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2017; Nov; 18 (11) 1483-1492
• Von Der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT, Dogliotti L, Oliver T, Moore MJ. et al Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2000; Sep; 18 (17) 3068-3077
• Loehrer PJ, Einhorn LH, Elson PJ, Crawford ED, Kuebler P, Tannock I. et al A randomized comparison of cisplatin alone or in combination with methotrexate, vinblastine, and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a cooperative group study. J Clin Oncol 1992; Jul; 10 (07) 1066-1073
• De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Mead G, Kerst JM, Leahy M, Maroto P. et al Randomized phase II/ III trial assessing gemcitabine/carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: EORTC study 30986. J Clin Oncol 2012; Jan; 30 (02) 191-199
• Sella A, Kovel S. Combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin in urothelial cancer patients unfit for cisplatin due to impaired renal or cardiac function. Int Braz J Urol 2012; Jan/Feb; 38 (01) 49-56
• Bamias A, Moulopoulos LA, Koutras A, Aravantinos G, Fountzilas G, Pectasides D. et al The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin as first-line treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. A phase II study of the hellenic cooperative oncology group. Cancer 2006; Jan; 106 (02) 297-303
• Linardou H, Aravantinos G, Efstathiou E, Kalofonos C, Anagnostopoulos A, Deliveliotis C. et al Gemcitabine and carboplatin combination as first-line treatment in elderly patients and those unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy with advanced bladder carcinoma: phase II study of the Hellenic Co-operative Oncology Group. Urology 2004; Sep; 64 (03) 479-484
• Nogué-Aliguer M, Carles J, Arrivi A, Juan O, Alonso L, Font A. et al Gemcitabine and carboplatin in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract: an alternative therapy. Cancer 2003; May; 97 (09) 2180-2186
• Shannon C, Crombie C, Brooks A, Lau H, Drummond M, Gurney H.. Carboplatin and gemcitabine in metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: effective treatment of patients with poor prognostic features. Ann Oncol 2001; Jul; 12 (07) 947-952
• Di Martino E, Tomlinson DC, Williams SV, Knowles MA. A place for precision medicine in bladder cancer: targeting the FGFRs. Future Oncol 2016; Oct; 12 (19) 2243-2263
• Clinical Trials (US). Study of durvalumab given with chemotherapy, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab given with chemotherapy, or chemotherapy in patients with unresectable urothelial cancer (NILE). Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2018. [Sep cited 2019 Aug 21]; NCT03682068:[about 10 screens] Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03682068?term=NCT03682068&rank=1
• Clinical Trials (US). Study of MEDI4736 (durvalumab) with or without tremelimumab versus standard of care chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2015. [Aug cited 2019 Aug 21]; NCT02516241:[about 8 screens] Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02516241
• Clinical Trials (US). Study of atezolizumab as monotherapy and in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in participants with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130). Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2016. [Jun cited 2019 Aug 21]; NCT02807636:[about 11 screens] Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02807636
• Clinical Trials (US). Study of pembrolizumab with or without platinum-based combination chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in urothelial carcinoma (MK- 3475-361/ KEYNOTE-361). Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2016. [Aug cited 2019 Aug 21]; NCT02853305:[about 9 screens] Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02853305
• Siefker-Radtke AO, Necchi A, Rosenbaum E, Culine S, Burgess EF, O'Donnell PH. et al Efficacy of programmed death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death 1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors in patients with FGFR mutations and gene fusions: results from a data analysis of an ongoing phase 2 study of erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493) in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial cancer (UC). J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (6 Suppl 1): 450
• Galsky MD, Saci A, Szabo P, Wang L, Zhu J, Azrilevich A. et al Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARg), and outcomes with nivolumab (nivo) in metastatic urothelial cancer (UC). J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (6 Suppl 1): 511
• Siefker-Radtke AO, Necchi A, Park SH, GarciaDonas J, Huddart RA, Burgess EF. et al First results from the primary analysis population of the phase 2 study of erdafitinib (ERDA; JNJ42756493) in patients (pts) with metastatic or unresectable urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and FGFR alterations (FGFRalt). J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (15 Suppl 1): 4503
• Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). Resolução-RE n. 2.692, de 26 de setembro de 2019. Gerência-Geral de Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF): ANVISA; 2019; [access 2019 Nov 8]; 1(Suppl 1):12. Available from: http://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/resolucao-re-n-2.692-de-26-desetembro-de-2019-218910561
• Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, Fradet Y, Lee JL, Fong L. et al Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2017; Mar; 376 (11) 1015-1026
• Vaughn DJ, Bellmunt J, Fradet Y, Lee JL, Fong L, Vogelzang NJ. et al Health-related quality-of-life analysis from KEYNOTE-045: a phase III study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously treated advanced urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; Jun; 36 (16) 1579-1587
• Powles T, Durán I, Van Der Heijden MS, Loriot Y, Vogelzang NJ, De Giorgi U. et al Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinumtreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, openlabel, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; Feb; 391 (10122): 748-757
• Powles T, O'Donnell PH, Massard C, Arkenau HT, Friedlander TW, Hoimes CJ. et al Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: updated results from a phase 1/2 open-label study. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3 (09) e172411
• Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A, Baron A, Necchi A, Bedke J. et al Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; Mar; 18 (03) 312-322
• Bellmunt J, Theodore C, Demkov T, Komyakov B, Sengelov L, Daugaard G. et al Phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone after a platinumcontaining regimen in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. J Clin Oncol 2009; Sep; 27 (27) 4454-4461
• Loriot Y, Necchi A, Park SH, Garcia-Donas J, Huddart R, Burgess E. et al Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019; Jul; 381 (04) 338-348
• Clinical Trials (US). A study of erdafitinib compared with vinflunine or docetaxel or pembrolizumab in participants with advanced urothelial cancer and selected Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) gene aberrations. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2018. Jan access 2019 Jul 2 NCT03390504 Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03390504
• Froehner M, Hölscher T, Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP. Treatment of bone metastases in urologic malignancies. Urol Int 2014; 93 (03) 249-256
• Zhang C, Liu L, Tao F, Guo X, Feng G, Chen F. et al Bone metastases pattern in newly diagnosed metastatic bladder cancer: a population-based study. J Cancer 2018; 9 (24) 4706-4711
• Bajorin DF, Dodd PM, Mazumdar M, Fazzari M, McCaffrey JA, Scher HI. et al Long- term survival in metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma and prognostic factors predicting outcome of therapy. J Clin Oncol 1999; Oct; 17 (10) 3173-3181
• Body JJ, Bone HG, Boer RH, Stopeck A, Van Poznak C, Damião R. et al Hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease treated with denosumab. Eur J Cancer 2015; Sep; 51 (13) 1812-1821
• Lipton A, Fizazi K, Stopeck AT, Henry DH, Brown JE, Yardley DA. et al Superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletalrelated events: a combined analysis of 3 pivotal, randomised, phase 3 trials. Eur J Cancer 2012; Nov; 48 (16) 3082-3092
• Costa L, Fizazi K, Saad F, Brown JE, Von Moos R, Sternberg SOCN. et al Denosumab and zoledronic acid treatment in patients with genitourinary cancers and bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (15 Suppl 1): 5079
• Saylor PJ, Armstrong AJ, Fizazi K, Freedland S, Saad F, Smith MR. et al New and emerging therapies for bone metastases in genitourinary cancers. Eur Urol 2013; Feb; 63 (02) 309-320
• Leng S, Lentzsch S.. Bone-modifying agents: complicated to use. J Oncol Pract 2018; Aug; 14 (08) 469-470
• Ribeiro GH, Chrun ES, Dutra KL, Daniel FI, Grando LJ. Osteonecrosis of the jaws: a review and update in etiology and treatment. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 84 (01) 102-108

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 17. September 2019

Angenommen: 26. Januar 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Juni 2020