HIVEC HR: Chemohyperthermia with mitomycin C vs BCG for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial

González-Padilla, Daniel A.; Díaz, A. González; Miranda-Utrera, N.; Kehrmann, F. De La Rosa; Villacampa-Aubá, F.; Guerrero-Ramos, F.

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(19)30563-9

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prospective trials have been specifically conducted in different populations that are currently under analysis. Highly interesting results have recently confirmed that HIVEC MMC is valuable in the high-risk NMIBC population [ 23 , 24 ] and also in cases of BCG failure [ 25 , 26 ]. The present study, based on a real-world analysis, provides additional prognostic information on the value of adjunct HIVEC MMC, both in intermediate and high-risk groups, and aims to provide a rationale for selecting specific populations that could benefit from this approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Experience with Hyperthermic Chemotherapy (HIVEC) Using Mitomycin-C in Patients with Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Spain

Plata

Guerrero-Ramos

Garcia

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Intravesical mitomycin-C (MMC) combined with hyperthermia is increasingly used in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), especially in the context of a relative BCG shortage. We aim to determine real-world data on the long-term treatment outcomes of adjunct hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) with MMC and a COMBAT® bladder recirculation system (BRS); (2) Methods: A prospective observational trial was performed on patients with NMIBC treated with HIVEC using BRS in nine academic institutions in Spain between 2012–2020 (HIVEC-E). Treatment effectiveness (recurrence, progression and overall mortality) was evaluated in patients treated with HIVEC MMC 40mg in the adjuvant setting, with baseline data and a clinical follow-up, that comprise the Full Analysis Set (FAS). Safety, according to the number and severity of adverse effects (AEs), was evaluated in the safety (SAF) population, composed by patients with at least one adjunct HIVEC MMC instillation; (3) Results: The FAS population (n = 502) received a median number of 8.78 ± 3.28 (range 1–20) HIVEC MMC instillations. The median follow-up duration was 24.5 ± 16.5 (range 1–81) months. Its distribution, based on EAU risk stratification, was 297 (59.2%) for intermediate and 205 (40.8%) for high-risk. The figures for five-year recurrence-free and progression-free survival were 50.37% (53.3% for intermediate and 47.14% for high-risk) and 89.83% (94.02% for intermediate and 84.23% for high-risk), respectively. A multivariate analysis identified recurrent tumors (HR 1.83), the duration of adjuvant HIVEC therapy <4 months (HR 1.72) and that high-risk group (HR 1.47) were at an increased risk of recurrence. Independent factors of progression were high-risk (HR 3.89), recurrent tumors (HR 3.32) and the induction of HIVEC therapy without maintenance (HR 2.37). The overall survival was determined by patient age at diagnosis (HR 3.36) and the treatment duration (HR 1.82). The SAF population (n = 592) revealed 406 (68.58%) patients without AEs and 186 (31.42%) with at least one AE: 170 (28.72%) of grade 1–2 and 16 (2.7%) of grade 3–4. The most frequent AEs were dysuria (10%), pain (7.1%), urgency (5.7%), skin rash (4.9%), spasms (3.7%) and hematuria (3.6%); (4) Conclusions: HIVEC using BRS is efficacious and well tolerated. A longer treatment duration, its use in naïve patients and the intermediate-risk disease are independent determinants of success. Furthermore, a monthly maintenance of adjunct MMC HIVEC diminishes the progression rate of NMIBC.

show abstract