Vinflunine for the treatment of advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract: An evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Steven C. Brousell, Joseph J. Fantony, Megan G. Van Noord, Michael R. Harrison, Brant A. Inman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of systemic vinflunine (VIN) in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma (UC) was performed to evaluate its efficacy based on current available clinical data. Methods: This review was prospectively registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (registration CRD42016049294). Electronic databases including MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched through December 2016. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Numerous secondary clinical outcomes were analyzed including response and toxicity data. Results: We identified 382 publications, of which 35 met inclusion criteria for this review representing 29 unique studies. A total of 2,255 patients received VIN for the treatment of UC in the included studies. OS and PFS were analyzed in a pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis. Response data were available for 1,416 VIN-treated patients with random effects proportion of complete response in 1%, partial response in 18%, and overall response rate of 21%. Toxicity analysis revealed fatigue (40.1%), nausea (33.9%), constipation (34.1%), and alopecia (26.0%) as the most prevalent overall non-hematologic adverse events (AEs). Most prevalent grade 3-4 AEs were fatigue (10.2%), abdominal pain (8.2%), myalgias (2.5%), and nausea (2.3%). Most common hematologic AEs of all grades were anemia (56.6%), neutropenia (46.0%), thrombocytopenia (25.5%), and febrile neutropenia (6.6%). Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs had the following pooled rates: neutropenia, 24.6%; anemia, 10.2%; febrile neutropenia, 5.4%; and thrombocytopenia, 3.0%. Conclusion: VIN has been explored as a combination first-line treatment as well as a singleagent second-line, third-line, and maintenance therapy for advanced and metastatic UC. In firstline treatment of UC, either as a maintenance agent after cisplatin or as a primary combination therapy, VIN may be a promising alternative to current treatments. Further studies are needed to compare first-line combination VIN regimens to the current standard of care in order to assess long-term survival outcomes. Second- and third-line VIN monotherapy does provide a proven, although limited, survival benefit in platinum-refractory patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalCore Evidence
Volume13
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 24 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Bladder cancer
  • Chemotherapy
  • Metastatic
  • Survival
  • Urothelial carcinoma
  • Vinflunine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reviews and References, Medical
  • Pharmacology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Vinflunine for the treatment of advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract: An evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this