Kristian Stensland

PURPOSE: Given that randomized trials exploring adjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer have been underpowered and/or terminated prematurely, yielding inconsistent results and creating an evidence gap, we sought to compare the effectiveness of cystectomy versus cystectomy plus adjuvant chemotherapy in real-world patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study to compare the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation postcystectomy in patients with pathologic T3-4 and/or pathologic node-positive bladder cancer using the National Cancer Data Base. We compared overall survival using propensity score (-adjusted, -stratified, -weighted, and -matched) analyses based on patient-, facility-, and tumor-level characteristics. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of performance status. RESULTS: A total of 5,653 patients met study inclusion criteria; 23% received adjuvant chemotherapy postcystectomy. Chemotherapy-treated patients were younger and more likely to have private insurance, live in areas with a higher median income and higher percentage of high school-educated residents, and have lymph node involvement and positive surgical margins (P < .05 for all comparisons). Stratified analyses adjusted for propensity score demonstrated an improvement in overall survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.76), and similar results were achieved with propensity score matching and weighting. The association between adjuvant chemotherapy and improved survival was consistent in subset analyses and was robust to the effects of poor performance status. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains the preferred approach based on level I evidence, these data lend further support for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer postcystectomy who did not receive chemotherapy preoperatively.

The number and diversity of cancer therapeutics in the pipeline has increased over the past decade due to an enhanced understanding of cancer biology and the identification of novel therapeutic targets. At the same time, the cost of bringing new drugs to market and the regulatory burdens associated with clinical drug development have progressively increased. The finite number of eligible patients and limited financial resources available to evaluate promising new therapeutics represent rate-limiting factors in the effort to translate preclinical discoveries into the next generation of standard therapeutic approaches. Optimal use of resources requires understanding and ultimately addressing inefficiencies in the cancer clinical trials system. Prior analyses have demonstrated that a large proportion of trials initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cooperative Group system are never completed. While NCI Cooperative Group trials are important, they represent only a small proportion of all cancer clinical trials performed. Herein, we explore the problem of cancer clinical trials that fail to complete within the broader cancer clinical trials enterprise. Among 7776 phase II-III adult cancer clinical trials initiated between 2005-2011, we found a seven-year cumulative incidence of failure to complete of approximately 20% (95% confidence interval = 18% to 22%). Nearly 48000 patients were enrolled in trials that failed to complete. These trials likely contribute little to the scientific knowledge base, divert resources and patients from answering other critical questions, and represent a barrier to progress.

PURPOSE: Reporting adverse events is a critical element of a clinical trial publication. In 2003, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group generated recommendations regarding the appropriate reporting of adverse events. The degree to which these recommendations are followed in oncology publications has not been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: A review of citations from PubMed, Medline, and Embase published between Jan 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, identified eligible randomized, controlled phase III trials in metastatic solid malignancies. Publications were assessed for 14 adverse event-reporting elements derived from the CONSORT harms extension statement; a completeness score (range, 0 to 14) was calculated by adding the number of elements reported. Linear regression analysis identified which publication characteristics associated with reporting completeness. RESULTS: A total of 175 publications, with data for 96,125 patients, were included in the analysis. The median completeness score was eight (range, three to 12). Most publications (96%) reported only adverse events occurring above a threshold rate or severity, 37% did not specify the criteria used to select which adverse events were reported, and 88% grouped together adverse events of varying severity. Regression analysis revealed that trials without a stated funding source and with an earlier year of publication had significantly lower completeness scores. CONCLUSION: Reporting of adverse events in oncology publications of randomized trials is suboptimal and characterized by substantial selectivity and heterogeneity. The development of oncology-specific standards for adverse event reporting should be established to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making.

PURPOSE: Patients with bladder cancer with clinical lymph node involvement (cN+) are at high risk for distant metastases, but are potentially curable. Such patients are excluded from neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials and pooled with patients with distant metastases in first-line chemotherapy trials not suited to define the role of combined-modality therapy. To address this evidence void, we performed a comparative effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We included cTanyN1-3M0 bladder cancer patients from the National Cancer Data Base (2003-2012) treated with chemotherapy and/or cystectomy. We used multistate survival analysis, allowing for delayed entry, to assess overall survival (OS) according to various treatment strategies. Effectiveness was estimated with multivariable adjustment for tumor-, patient-, and facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1,739 patients (cN1, 48%; cN2, 45%; cN3, 7%), 1,104 underwent cystectomy and 635 were treated with chemotherapy alone. Of the cystectomy patients, 363 received preoperative and 328 received adjuvant chemotherapy. The crude 5-year OS for chemotherapy alone, cystectomy alone, preoperative chemotherapy followed by cystectomy, and cystectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 17%), 19% (95% CI, 15% to 24%), 31% (95% CI, 25% to 38%), and 26% (95% CI, 21% to 34%), respectively. Compared with cystectomy alone, preoperative chemotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97). Adjuvant chemotherapy was also associated with a significant improvement in survival compared with cystectomy alone. The survival of patients treated with chemotherapy alone was worse than those treated with cystectomy alone. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with cN+ bladder cancer achieves long-term survival. Combined-modality therapy, with chemotherapy and cystectomy, is associated with the best outcomes.