ArticleFrontiers in urology2023
Feasibility and effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy with mitomycin C in patients with advanced penile cancer.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Triple-drug cisplatin- and taxane-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for metastatic penile squamous cell cancer (PeSCC), with a moderate response rate of 30% to 38%. Relapse after first-line chemotherapy has a poor prognosis and there is no established second-line treatment. Mitomycin C (MMC) is used as an effective chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of other localities. We therefore used MMC as a single agent for the second-line treatment for patients with advanced PeSCC. Methods: Nine patients [median age 63 years (range 31 years-81 years)], who, after inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy and progression after first-line chemotherapy, received second-line treatment with 20 mg of MMC administered intravenously and weekly, were included in this study. The median number of cycles of MMC was 6 (range 2-12 cycles) and the median cumulative dose was 120 mg absolute (range 40 mg absolute-240 mg absolute). The patients' toxicity and treatment responses were evaluated, with the latter evaluated using Results: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and grades 2 or 3 leukopenia occurred in all patients, as did anemia. In seven patients, the application interval had to be extended due to thrombocytopenia. Stable disease was achieved in two patients, and all others progressed under treatment. Seven patients died of the disease, with most patients dying 6 months after starting MMC therapy. Of the two patients who responded with disease stabilization, one died of progressive disease 14 months after MMC treatment. The other responding patient has been stable for over 1 year and is still receiving treatment, which he tolerates well, and has a good quality of life. Conclusion: MMC has only moderate efficacy as a second-line treatment in patients with metastatic PeSCC. With MMC treatment, hematological toxicity is marked.
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.