ArticleCancer management and research2018
Gemcitabine and docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic therapy augments the efficacy of gemcitabine-containing regimens for advanced cancer: a retrospective study.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Cachexia Index Is a Prognostic Indicator in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Treated With Systemic Chemotherapy.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) as a second-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 122 patients with mUC who were previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received second-line GD therapy from July 2010 to June 2016. This consisted of 800 mg/m
resultsThe median follow-up period was 8.2 months (range: 2.1-100). The median number of treatment cycles was three (range: 1-16) in Group A, three (1-15) in Group B, and two (1-11) in Group C. The objective response rate was not significantly different between the three groups. In addition, PFS and OS from the start of second-line GD therapy were also not significantly different. According to univariate and multivariate analyses of the second-line GD-treated cohort, a good performance status was the only prognostic factor for PFS and OS. In Group C, myelosuppression including predominant neutropenia and anemia, fatigue, and nausea were the main common adverse events. However, the incidence of neutropenia and a reduction in platelets were not significantly different between the three groups. Treatment-related deaths did not occur in this study.
conclusionIn this study, GD combination therapy as a second-line treatment for mUC resulted in favorable tumor responses and few treatment-related toxicities, even among elderly patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.