Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChoudhury, A
dc.contributor.authorWest, CM
dc.contributor.authorPorta, N
dc.contributor.authorHall, E
dc.contributor.authorDenley, H
dc.contributor.authorHendron, C
dc.contributor.authorLewis, R
dc.contributor.authorHussain, SA
dc.contributor.authorHuddart, R
dc.contributor.authorJames, N
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-01T12:43:01Z
dc.date.issued2017-02-28
dc.identifier.citationBritish journal of cancer, 2017, 116 (5), pp. 649 - 657
dc.identifier.issn0007-0920
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/405
dc.identifier.eissn1532-1827
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/bjc.2017.2
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Severe chronic hypoxia is associated with tumour necrosis. In patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), necrosis is prognostic for survival following surgery or radiotherapy and predicts benefit from hypoxia modification of radiotherapy. Adding mitomycin C (MMC) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy to radiotherapy improved locoregional control (LRC) compared to radiotherapy alone in the BC2001 trial. We hypothesised that tumour necrosis would not predict benefit for the addition of MMC and 5-FU to radiotherapy, but would be prognostic. METHODS: Diagnostic tumour samples were available from 230 BC2001 patients. Tumour necrosis was scored on whole-tissue sections as absent or present, and its predictive and prognostic significance explored using Cox proportional hazards models. Survival estimates were obtained by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Tumour necrosis was present in 88/230 (38%) samples. Two-year LRC estimates were 71% (95% CI 61-79%) for the MMC/5-FU chemoradiotherapy group and 49% (95% CI 38-59%) for the radiotherapy alone group. When analysed by tumour necrosis status, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for MMC/5-FU vs. no chemotherapy were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.12-0.99; P=0.05, necrosis present) and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.31-0.98; P=0.04, necrosis absent). Multivariable analysis of prognosis for LRC by the presence vs. absence of necrosis yielded a HR=0.89 (95% CI 0.55-1.44, P=0.65). There was no significant association for necrosis as a predictive or prognostic factor with respect to overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Tumour necrosis was neither predictive nor prognostic, and therefore MMC/5-FU is an appropriate radiotherapy-sensitising treatment in MIBC independent of necrosis status.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent649 - 657
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCI LTD
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectNeoplasm Invasiveness
dc.subjectMitomycin
dc.subjectFluorouracil
dc.subjectTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
dc.subjectPrognosis
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectSurvival Analysis
dc.subjectPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectUrinary Bladder Neoplasms
dc.subjectChemoradiotherapy
dc.titleThe predictive and prognostic value of tumour necrosis in muscle invasive bladder cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the BC2001 trial (CRUK/01/004).
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-12-28
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1038/bjc.2017.2
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-02
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfBritish journal of cancer
pubs.declined2017-02-01T11:44:45.327+0000
pubs.deleted2017-02-01T11:44:45.327+0000
pubs.issue5
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/ICR-CTSU Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Prostate and Bladder Cancer Research
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/ICR-CTSU Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Prostate and Bladder Cancer Research
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume116
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamClinical Trials & Statistics Unit
icr.researchteamICR-CTSU Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team
icr.researchteamClinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
icr.researchteamProstate and Bladder Cancer Research
dc.contributor.icrauthorPorta, Nuria
dc.contributor.icrauthorHall, Emma
dc.contributor.icrauthorLewis, Rebecca
dc.contributor.icrauthorHuddart, Robert
dc.contributor.icrauthorJames, Nicholas


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0