Eligibility criteria for different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens in metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Introduction

Bladder cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) primarily include platinum-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is conventionally used for treating mUC, but many patients are ineligible due to various factors such as poor performance status, creatinine clearance, neuropathy, and cardiac function. Carboplatin-based therapy is another alternative, which typically yields less favorable outcomes. Some centers use split-dose cisplatin for treating patients with comorbidities and impaired renal function, broadening cisplatin's spectrum. While eligibility criteria for full-dose cisplatin are well-established, those for split-dose cisplatin and carboplatin lack strong evidence. This study aims to assess the recommended criteria for full-dose cisplatin, split-dose cisplatin, and carboplatin regimens in real-world settings, including hematological parameters for patients with mUC.

Methods 

A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among 136 oncologists from 21 countries, assessing criteria such as creatinine clearance, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), neurotoxicity, hearing loss, heart failure classification, and hematological parameters.

Results

The survey revealed diverse preferences among 113 oncologists treating mUC, regarding the eligibility criteria for each chemotherapy regimen with 81% prioritizing full-dose cisplatin, 21% split-dose cisplatin, and 14% carboplatin regimens. Criteria for all three regimens included specific thresholds. For full-dose cisplatin, the preferred criteria included creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min, ECOG PS ≤1, grade 1 neuropathy, grade 1 deafness, New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure ≤class II with ≥50% cardiac ejection fraction, and normal blood parameters. Split-dose cisplatin criteria were creatinine clearance ≥40 mL/min, ECOG PS ≤2, grade 1 neuropathy, grade 1 deafness, NYHA heart failure ≤class II with ≥50% cardiac ejection fraction, and normal blood parameters. Carboplatin eligibility criteria were creatinine clearance ≥30, ECOG PS ≤2, grade ≤2 neuropathy, grade ≤2 deafness, NYHA heart failure ≤class II with ≥50% cardiac ejection fraction, and normal blood parameters. Hematological parameters were deemed crucial for all regimens, particularly stringent for carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Conclusion

The study underscores the importance of renal function and hematological parameters in determining chemotherapy eligibility for patients with mUC. It highlights the importance of precise treatment criteria in mUC management, with hematological factors playing a significant role. Standardized criteria and further research are warranted to optimize treatment outcomes and minimize adverse events associated with chemotherapy regimens. Understanding the preferences of oncologists globally can facilitate tailored treatment approaches and improve patient care in the management of mUC.