Abstract
Purpose
The renal safety of cisplatin-based chemotherapy has not been investigated in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UC) who retain a solitary kidney after nephroureterectomy. This study aimed to assess and compare the renal safety and efficacy of gemcitabine–cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine–carboplatin (GC) in these patients.
Methods
The medical records of patients diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center between January 2005 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The creatinine clearance (CrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were used to assess renal function and were calculated using different formulas.
Results
A total of 71 patients were enrolled in this study; 48 patients were on GP, and 23 were on GC. The renal function indicators (CrCl and eGFR) were all significantly lower after GP chemotherapy than at baseline, a phenomenon that was not observed in the GC group. Severe nephrotoxicities (SNTs) were reported in 12 patients on GP (25%) and zero on GC. SNT risk factors included a more than 20% decrease in eGFR after one GP cycle and the presence of diabetes (all p < 0.05). Among patients treated with first-line palliative chemotherapy (n = 32), GC (n = 13) patients had an ORR of 46.2%, which was not significantly different from GP patients (36.8%, n = 19), whereas GC patients tended to have a shorter OS than GP patients (9.2 vs. 29 months, p = 0.200).
Conclusions
Our results confirm that GP has an adverse impact on the renal function of patients with UUT-UC who retain a solitary kidney, but it can be safely administered to the majority of these patients without inducing SNT. In specific patients, GC is an alternative to GP that has comparable efficacy and favourable renal toxicity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 5–10% of all urothelial malignancies [1,2,3]. Radical nephroureterectomy is the gold standard management and only curable therapeutic option for UUT-UC, although the UUT-UC prognosis remains poor if invasive [4,5,6]. Therefore, it is reasonable to advocate for systematic chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment for locally advanced UUT-UC or as salvage treatment for disseminated disease [7]. However, due to the rarity of these tumours, randomized clinical trials are not available, and data are sparse regarding the use of chemotherapy to treat UUT-UC. Given similar biological features and chemosensitivity to bladder cancer [8, 9], a cisplatin-based regimen is commonly prescribed in the chemotherapy regimen for UUT-UC [10,11,12,13].
Recently, a combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) has become the front-line chemotherapy regimen for bladder cancer as well as UUT-UC [14]. Although GP has shown considerable efficacy in UUT-UCs [15], there is a therapeutic dilemma regarding the utility of GP for treating patients with UUT-UC who retain a solitary functional kidney after nephroureterectomy. The high prevalence of chronic kidney disease [16] and decreased renal reserve due to kidney removal is the major concern [17]. To date, available data on the renal safety of GP chemotherapy in this particular group are rare. In 2011, a group from Korea published a retrospective review of 60 patients with UUT-UC who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy. Their data demonstrated that a cisplatin-containing regimen (GP in 20 patients) was tolerable in the majority of patients with a solitary kidney [18]; however, the study did not provide detailed results for the GP arm.
Carboplatin has a similar mechanism of action as cisplatin but has different pharmacokinetics and relatively low nephrotoxicity [19]. In clinical practice, carboplatin is considered as a substitute for cisplatin in a series of cancers in patients who are unfit for cisplatin. In a randomized study, gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) is an effective regimen for patients with urothelial carcinomas, and it is generally considered an alternative to GP in patients with renal impairment [20, 21]. On the basis of this consideration, the GC regimen might be a rational treatment option for patients with UUT-UC after nephroureterectomy. Unfortunately, it remains uncertain whether the renal safety of GP is superior to that of GC in this patient population due to limited available data.
We conducted this study to compare the renal safety of GP and GC in patients who have a solitary kidney after nephroureterectomy as well as to further assess the efficacy of the two regimens. We hope that our results provide important guidance for this particular population of Chinese patients.
Patients and methods
Ethics statement
All of the patients provided written consent for their information to be stored in the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center database and used for research. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an independent ethics committee at the Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University.
Patient selection and treatment
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center between January 2005 and December 2015. Finally, a total of 71 patients who underwent palliative/adjuvant chemotherapy with GP (n = 48) or GC (n = 23) after nephroureterectomy for UUT-UC were included. All of the patients were chemo naive. Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had a definite history of acute or chronic renal disease were excluded. Basic demographics (gender and age), baseline tumour characteristics (location and side of the primary tumour) and relevant laboratory data were collected.
The two chemotherapy regimens were administered every 28 days as follows: 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 and 75 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 for the GP regimen and 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC × 5 on day 1 for the GC regimen. Gemcitabine was diluted in 100 mL of normal saline and administered as a continuous infusion within 30 min. Cisplatin was diluted in 500 mL of normal saline and administered a continuous infusion over 3 h, while adequate hydration was given. Carboplatin was diluted in 500 mL of 5% glycosylated solution and administered a continuous infusion over 1 h. Chemotherapy was discontinued if the disease progressed or intolerable toxicity developed, according to the physician’s evaluation.
Evaluation
Relevant laboratory tests for renal function were performed before and after each chemotherapy cycle. The serum creatinine level, creatinine clearance (CrCl), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were adopted as indicators of renal function. CrCl was calculated using the C–G formula (Cockcroft–Gault) [22], and eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula) [23]. Severe nephrotoxicity (SNT) during the treatment course was identified as ≥grade 2 renal function-related adverse events by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) [24]. The objective tumour response was evaluated by computed tomography every two cycles using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [25].
Statistical analysis
Comparisons of renal function were displayed with the paired t test. Comparisons between proportions were performed with Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Logistic regression methodology was used to detect risk factors for SNT. The overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date of death or the last follow-up visit, and it was estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed based on the Cox proportional hazards regression methodology. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs and two-sided p values are reported. An alpha value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 19.0(IBM company, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Clinico-pathological characteristics
The baseline characteristics of all of the participants are listed in Table 1. The median age of the entire study cohort was 59 years (range 43–73) and contained primarily men. Hypertension and diabetes were observed in 13 patients (18.3%) and 8 patients (11.3%), respectively. Forty-six patients (64.8%) presented with a primary tumour in the renal pelvis, and 25 tumours (35.2%) were located at the urethra. Adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line palliative chemotherapy were administered to 39 (54.9%) and 32 patients (45.1%), respectively. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was three. Baseline clinical characteristics were generally well balanced across the two treatment groups (GP vs. GC), and there were no statistically significant difference.
Renal function
The baseline mean values for serum creatinine (μmol/L), CrCl (mL/min) and eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) were 100.5 ± 23.5, 62.0 ± 17.5 and 69.6 ± 18.6 for GP and 109.6 ± 37.1, 68.1 ± 53.8 and 68.1 ± 29.4 for GC, respectively. There were no significant differences in the four values between GP and GC (all p > 0.05, Table 1). Changes in renal function were followed every cycle. For patients in the GP group, the mean serum creatinine (μmol/L) after three cycles of chemotherapy was 107.0 ± 24.2, which is significantly higher than at baseline (p = 0.012, Table 2). Likewise, the mean CrCl (mL/min) and eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) values were 61.4 ± 17.3 and 65.9 ± 18.9 after three cycles of GP, respectively, and both were significantly lower than at baseline in the GP group (all p < 0.05, Table 2). However, for the GC group, the three renal function indicators did not show any significant change after the third cycle (Table 2).
Toxicity
No toxicity-related death was observed. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in three patients (6.3%) who received GP and one patient who received GC (4.3%), anaemia grade 3/4 in one GP patient and three GC patients (13.0%). Furthermore, thrombopenia grade 3/4 in four GP patients (8.3%) and two GC patients (8.7%), showing no statistical significance between the GP and GC groups (all p > 0.05, Table 3). GP is associated with a relatively higher rate of nausea and vomiting grade 3/4 (5/48, 10.4%) than GC (1/23, 4.3%). Most importantly, SNT occurred in 12 patients (25%) on GP, whereas no SRT was observed in the GC group (p = 0.007, Table 3). Of 12 patients with SNT, 5 patients developed SNT after the first cycle, and 3 patients developed SNT after the second cycle. After management by a nephrologist, all of the SNT was cured, and no dialysis was needed.
We then performed a multivariate analysis using a regression model in patients receiving GP (Table 4). An over 20% decrease in eGFR (assessed by CKD-EPI) after one cycle and the presence of diabetes were two risk factors for SNT (all p < 0.05). However, the gender, age, baseline serum creatinine, baseline CrCl and eGFR levels, resected kidney, hypertension and aims of chemotherapy were not associated with SNT.
Treatment response and survival
Palliative chemotherapy was provided to 32 patients, although complete response (CR) was not observed. Partial response (PR) was observed in 7 patients (36.8%) on GP and 6 patients (46.2%) on GC (Table 3). In addition, OS was evaluated for the two groups (n = 32). Within a median follow-up time of 16 months, 14 deaths were observed (7 on GP and 7 on GC). The 2-year OS rate and median OS time were 50.6% and 29.0 months for GP and 38.1% and 9.2 months for GC, respectively (p = 0.200, Fig. 1).
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating GP and GC regimens in patients with solely UUT-UC and a solitary kidney. A statistically significant reduction in renal function (evaluated by CrCl and eGFR) was observed in 48 patients after GP chemotherapy was not observed in GC. Moreover, 25% of 48 patients (n = 12) developed severe nephrotoxicity (SNT) in the GP group, whereas none was reported in the GC group. These finding implied that GP could be safely administered to in most cases; however, GC had more reliable renal safety in this frail patient population.
The GP combination showed favourable efficacy and toxicity in patients with urothelial carcinoma, with ORRs ranging from 41 to 57% [20, 26]. The role of GP in standard care for urothelial carcinoma has been strengthened by a randomized study from America [27, 28]. Currently, GP has become the standard chemotherapy regimen for UUT-UCs as either adjuvant or salvage treatment [10, 11, 29, 30]. However, GP remains problematic in elderly patients and those with chronic kidney disease, who are generally considered “unfit” for cisplatin due to its renal toxicity. In addition, nephroureterectomy is commonly performed in UUT-UC and is widely considered to significantly impair renal function, as demonstrated by both Eastern and Western colleagues [31,32,33]. For this particular population, it remains unclear whether the participants could tolerate GP. Given the rarity of UUT-UC, a prospective study was difficult to conduct. Thus far, only one retrospective study from Korea has contributed limited data. In 2011, Korean oncologists reported their experience of 60 patients who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy (20 patients on GP). In that study, renal function tended to diminish after chemotherapy, but no detailed data regarding GP were provided. Five of 20 patients (25.0%) on GP ultimately experienced serious renal-related adverse events (AEs) (≥grade 2). In this study, GP was not used as an adjuvant treatment, and risk factors of severe renal toxicity in GP were not identified.
Nephrotoxicity is a serious and dose-accumulating toxicity of cisplatin [34, 35]. A total dose of cisplatin >400 mg was reported to be significantly related with decreased eGFR [36], implying that nephrotoxicity probably occurs when the patient has finished four cycles of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Similarly, dosage of cisplatin reduced especially after fifth and sixth cycles due to nephrotoxicity in the current study. Furthermore, our study revealed two SNT risk factors in patients treated with GP, including diabetes and a significant eGFR reduction (≥20%) after one cycle. These results suggested that patients with diabetes should be cautiously given GP. Indeed, diabetes is generally related to early renal function decline and might increase kidney sensitivity to renal toxicity from cisplatin [37]. In addition, dynamic eGFR monitoring was beneficial for the early detection of high-risk SNT patients. For patients presenting with ≥20% reduction of eGFR after one cycle, stopping GP chemotherapy would likely prevent SNT. Besides, biomarkers which could detect cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity in a early phase is warranted. Urinary vanin-1 was recently recognized as an early predictor for eGFR decline in patients treated with cisplatin. In a pilot study by Hosohata et al. [38], significant elevation of urinary vanin-1 on day 3 after cisplatin could predict the elevation of serum creatinine on day 6 in a group of urothelial carcinoma patients. For the patients with a solitary kidney, urinary vanin-1 might help to detect nephrotoxicity in an early phase and to further prevent SNT.
With regard to toxicity profiles other than nephrotoxicity, no significant differences between other non-haematological toxicities and haematological toxicities were detected between GP and GC. No treatment-related deaths were reported. GP showed a relatively higher rate of nausea and vomiting grade 3/4 and a relatively lower rate of anaemia grade 3/4, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Carboplatin has long been recognized as a promising substitute for cisplatin in patients with renal impairment [1,2,3]. Therefore, it is logical to study gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) to treat patients with urothelial carcinoma. Nogué-Aliguer et al. studied the tolerance and activity of GC in 31 patients with UUT-UCs and identified a response rate of 56.1% in 2003 [39]. In 2007, an Italian group demonstrated that GC showed a comparable response rate of 40% and acceptable toxicity profiles with GP from a randomized phase II study [20]. In 2009, EORTC study 30986 revealed that GC exhibited considerable activity, with a response rate of 42%, in advanced urothelial cancer patients who were unfit for cisplatin. However, GC was only effective in 26% of high-risk patients [21]. Park et al. conducted a retrospective study evaluating GC efficacy and toxicity in 31 patients with UUT-UCs who were unfit for cisplatin [40]. All of the patients included in that study met one of the following criteria: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, age ≥75 years or eGFR <60 mL/min. GC achieved a 45.1% response rate, and favourable toxicity was observed in these patients. The combination of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) has also been safely used in patients after nephrourectomy in a previous study [41]. However, no results with respect to GC in UUT-UC patients with a solitary kidney have yet been reported. In this study, renal safety was retrospectively compared between GP and GC in a compromised patient population for the first time. Our study validated that GC has a renal safety advantage and comparable toxicity, other than nephrotoxicity, compared to GP. Among patients treated with first-line palliative chemotherapy (n = 32), GC (n = 13) did not have a significantly different ORR (36.8%) from that of 46.2% in GP (n = 19). In Fig. 1, we could easily find that the survival curve of GC descended earlier than GP and GC reached a much shorter median OS than GP (9.2 vs. 29 months). However, the two curves (GP and GC) eventually crossed and stayed parallel to 48 months; thus, the significant difference was not obtained in the log-rank test (p = 0.200). The data on efficacy and survival might be limited by the small sample size. The long-term survival of GC should be further evaluated in a prospective study.
GFR is widely accepted as the most valuable and reasonable overall indicator of renal function. However, direct GFR measurements assessed using filtration markers (inulin, 125I-iothalamate, etc.) are expensive and difficult to operate in routine clinical practice [42, 43]. Therefore, various formulas have been established to calculate the GFR, but the suitability of these formulas for cancer patients is unclear, especially for those undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy [44]. Ganesh et al. retrospectively examined 208 patients with bladder cancer who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and calculated the CrCl using various formulas [44]. The authors found that the CrCl calculated from these formulas tended to underestimate true patient renal function, especially in older patients (>65 years). Japanese colleagues explored the validity of renal function calculated using the CKD-EPI equation [23], a Japanese equation, the C–G formula and CrCl measured by a 24 h creatinine collection in 50 patients treated with cisplatin. The CKD-EPI equation was more applicable to these patients than the results from C–G formula and 24 h creatinine collection [43]. In this study, we employed two different formulas (C–G and CKD-EPI) and both of which consistently showed decreased eGFR after GP treatment.
In addition to patients with nephroureterectomy benefitting from our results, patients with unilateral renal atrophy or unilateral non-functional kidney could benefit from our experience. However, the limitations of this study should also be acknowledged. First, this was a retrospective study that was limited to single institute and a small number of patients. Second, because we indirectly measured GFR, these data might not reflect true renal function. Finally, data on renal function after long-term follow-up were not available for analysis. All of the drawbacks should be addressed in a multicentre study with a prospective design in the future.
Conclusions
In conclusion, as far as we know, this is the first study to evaluate the renal safety and efficacy of GP and GC in UUT-UC patients with a solitary kidney after nephroureterectomy. Our results confirm that GP decreases renal function in this particular patient population but can be safely applied to the majority of these patients without inducing SNT. We also demonstrate the favourable renal safety and considerable efficacy of GC. In addition, GC is an alternative to GP for selected UUT-UC patients with a solitary kidney, especially when they are at risk of SNT from GP.
References
Ho GY, Woodward N, Coward JI (2016) Cisplatin versus carboplatin: comparative review of therapeutic management in solid malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 102:37–46
Necchi A, Pond GR, Raggi D et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus either taxane or carboplatin in the first-line setting of metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15:23–30.e2
Sumiyoshi T, Matsumoto K, Utsunomiya N, Segawa T, Muguruma K, Kawakita M (2013) Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) or gemcitabine and carboplatin (GCarbo) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo 59(1):1–6
Vassilakopoulou M, de la Motte Rouge T, Colin P et al (2011) Outcomes after adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of high-risk urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UC): results from a large multicenter collaborative study. Cancer 117(24):5500–5508
Rai BP, Shelley M, Coles B, Somani B, Nabi G (2012) Surgical management for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma (UUT-TCC): a systematic review. BJU Int 110:1426–1435
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30
Painter DJ, Timoney AG, Denton K, Alken P, Keeley FX (2007) The modern management of upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: tumour diagnosis, grading and staging. BJU Int 99:973–977
Hsieh MC, Chiang PH, Rau KM, Chen YY, Su YL, Huang CH (2015) The comparison of oncologic outcomes between metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Urol Oncol 33(11):495.e9–495.e14
Kikuchi E, Miyazaki J, Yuge K et al (2016) Do metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma and bladder carcinoma have similar clinical responses to systemic chemotherapy? A Japanese multi-institutional experience. Jpn J Clin Oncol 46(2):163–169
Kim TS, Oh JH, Rhew HY (2013) The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced upper tract urothelial cell carcinoma. J Cancer 4(8):686–690
Audenet F, Yates DR, Cussenot O, Rouprêt M (2013) The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of urothelial cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UCC). Urol Oncol 31(4):407–413
Fujita K, Inamoto T, Yamamoto Y et al (2015) Role of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph node-positive upper tract urothelial carcinoma and the prognostic significance of C-reactive protein: a multi-institutional, retrospective study. Int J Urol 22(11):1006–1012
Huang YC, Chen MF, Shi CS et al (2015) The efficacy of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pT3N0M0 upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 194(2):323–329
Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Compérat E et al (2015) European Association of Urology Guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinoma: 2015 update. Eur Urol 68:868–879
O’Donnell PH, Stadler WM (2009) The role of chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Adv Urol 2009:419028
Xiong G, Chen X, Li X et al (2014) Prevalence and factors associated with baseline chronic kidney disease in China: a 10-year study of 785 upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma patients. J Formos Med Assoc 113(8):521–526
Lane BR, Smith AK, Larson BT et al (2010) Chronic kidney disease after nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma and implications for the administration of perioperative chemotherapy. Cancer 116(12):2967–2973
Cho KS, Joung JY, Seo HK et al (2011) Renal safety and efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with a solitary kidney after nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 67(4):769–774
Pavelka M, Lucas MF, Russo N (2007) On the hydrolysis mechanism of the second-generation anticancer drug carboplatin. Chemistry 13:10108–10116
Dogliotti L, Cartenì G, Siena S et al (2007) Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: results of a randomized phase 2 trial. Eur Urol 52(1):134–141
De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Mead G et al (2009) Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer “unfit” for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: phase II—results of EORTC study 30986. J Clin Oncol 27(33):5634–5639
Faluyi OO, Masinghe SP, Hayward RL, Clive S (2012) Accuracy of GFR estimation by the Cockroft and Gault, MDRD, and Wright equations in oncology patients with renal impairment. Med Oncol 29(2):755–760
Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH et al (2009) A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 150(9):604–612
Yoshida K, Yamazaki H, Nakamara S et al (2014) Comparison of common terminology criteria for adverse events v3.0 and radiation therapy oncology group toxicity score system after high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 34(4):2015–2018
Aras M, Erdil TY, Dane F et al (2016) Comparison of WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun 37(1):9–15
Moore MJ, Winquist EW, Murray N et al (1999) Gemcitabine plus cisplatin, an active regimen in advanced urothelial cancer: a phase II trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 17(9):2876–2881
der Maase HV, Sengelov L, Roberts JT et al (2005) Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin, with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(21):4602–4608
Roberts JT, der Maase HV, Sengeløv L et al (2006) Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin and methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Ann Oncol 17(Suppl 5):v118–v122
Leow JJ, Martin-Doyle W, Fay AP, Choueiri TK, Chang SL, Bellmunt J (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol 66(3):529–541
Yafi FA, Tanguay S, Rendon R et al (2014) Adjuvant chemotherapy for upper-tract urothelial carcinoma treated with nephroureterectomy: assessment of adequate renal function and influence on outcome. Urol Oncol 32(1):31.e17-24
Dash A, Galsky MD, Vickers AJ et al (2006) Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 107(3):506–513
Kaag MG, O’Malley RL, O’Malley P et al (2010) Changes in renal function following nephroureterectomy may affect the use of perioperative chemotherapy. Eur Urol 58(4):581–587
Shao IH, Lin YH, Hou CP et al (2014) Risk factors associated with ineligibility of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy. Drug Des Dev Ther 8:1985–1990
Miller RP, Tadagavadi RK, Ramesh G, Reeves WB (2010) Mechanisms of cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Toxins (Basel) 2(11):2490–2518
Pabla N, Dong Z (2008) Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: mechanisms and renoprotective strategies. Kidney Int 73(9):994–1007
Kobayashi S, Ueno M, Ohkawa S, Irie K, Goda Y, Morimoto M (2014) Renal toxicity associated with weekly cisplatin and gemcitabine combination therapy for treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer. Oncology 87(1):30–39
Máthé C, Bohács A, Duffek L et al (2011) Cisplatin nephrotoxicity aggravated by cardiovascular disease and diabetes in lung cancer patients. Eur Respir J 37:888–894
Hosohata K, Washino S, Kubo T, Natsui S, Fujisaki A, Kurokawa S, Ando H, Fujimura A, Morita T (2016) Early prediction of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity by urinary vanin-1 in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Toxicology 359–360:71–75
Nogué-Aliguer M, Carles J, Arrivi A et al (2003) Gemcitabine and carboplatin in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract: an alternative therapy. Cancer 97(9):2180–2186
Park JH, Lee SW, Kim HS et al (2013) Combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin as first line treatment in elderly patients or those unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71(4):1033–1039
Daw NC, Gregornik D, Rodman J et al (2009) Renal function after ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) chemotherapy, nephrectomy and radiotherapy in children with Wilms tumour. Eur J Cancer 45(1):99–106
Beumer JH, Ding F, Tawbi H et al (2016) Effect of renal dysfunction on toxicity in three decades of cancer therapy evaluation program-sponsored single-agent phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 34(2):110–116
Funakoshi Y, Fujiwara Y, Kiyota N et al (2016) Validity of new methods to evaluate renal function in cancer patients treated with cisplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77(2):281–288
Raj GV, Iasonos A, Herr H, Donat SM (2006) Formulas calculating creatinine clearance are inadequate for determining eligibility for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(19):3095–3100
Acknowledgements
We feel deep gratitude to all the staff members in our department for their support and suggestion in this study. There is no funding in our study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, P., Xue, C., Li, LR. et al. The renal safety and efficacy of combined gemcitabine plus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus carboplatin chemotherapy in Chinese patients with a solitary kidney after nephroureterectomy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 80, 37–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-017-3316-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-017-3316-7