HEALTH PROFESSIONAL · SOURCE READING

Chemotherapy alone or as an adjunct to local treatment

Source: Bladder Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version, National Cancer Institute.

Source updated: May 2, 2025 · Captured 2026-09-09.

Selected source text with whitespace normalised. This Triangle page is not an NCI PDQ summary.

Context: Treatment of Stage IV Bladder Cancer / Treatment Options for Stage IV Bladder Cancer / Treatment options for patients with any T, any N, M1 disease

Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimens are the standard of care for first-line therapy for stage IV bladder cancer in patients who can tolerate it.[6-10] The only chemotherapy regimens that have been shown to result in longer survival in randomized controlled trials are MVAC, dose-dense MVAC, and CMV. GC was compared with MVAC in a randomized controlled trial and neither regimen was associated with a statistically significant difference in response rate or survival. The two regimens are generally considered equivalent, but they have never been compared in a noninferiority trial. Of note, patients with good performance status and lymph node–only disease have a low but significant rate of achieving a durable complete remission with MVAC or GC. For example, in a large, randomized controlled trial that compared MVAC with GC, the 5-year OS rate was 20.9% in patients with lymph node–only disease.[11] Dose-dense MVAC and standard-dose MVAC were compared in a randomized controlled trial, and dose-dense MVAC was associated with longer survival.

Source links and citations

Single-agent cisplatin and multiagent regimens that do not include cisplatin have never resulted in improved survival in a randomized controlled trial. For patients who are not candidates for cisplatin-based multiagent chemotherapy regimens, there is no regimen that has been shown to prolong survival. However, many regimens have demonstrated radiologically measurable responses.

These regimens include carboplatin plus paclitaxel,[12] carboplatin plus gemcitabine,[13-15] paclitaxel plus gemcitabine,[16-18] single-agent gemcitabine,[19,20] and single-agent paclitaxel.[21-23] The regimens of carboplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine; carboplatin, epirubicin, methotrexate, and vinblastine; and paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and carboplatin have been studied but are not widely used.[24-27]

Source links and citations

Ongoing studies are evaluating new chemotherapy combinations.

Evidence (chemotherapy):

A prospective randomized trial that compared MVAC with cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin demonstrated improved response rate and longer median survival (48 weeks vs. 36 weeks; P = .003) with the MVAC regimen.[29]

Source links and citations

Results from a randomized trial that compared MVAC with single-agent cisplatin in advanced bladder cancer also showed a significant advantage with MVAC in both response rate and median survival (12.5 months vs. 8.2 months; P = .002).[30]

Source links and citations

A multicenter randomized controlled trial compared CMV with methotrexate plus vinblastine without cisplatin in 214 patients. The relative risk of dying was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.51–0.90; P = .0065) in favor of CMV. The median survival was 7 months with CMV compared with 4.5 months for methotrexate plus vinblastine.[31]

Source links and citations

The EORTC conducted a randomized trial that included 263 patients with advanced bladder cancer. The study evaluated the efficacy of a high-dose intensity MVAC regimen given every 2 weeks with G-CSF compared with a classic MVAC regimen given every 4 weeks.[32]

Source links and citations

There was no significant difference in OS at a median follow-up of 3.2 years (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60–1.06; P = .122). However, at a median follow-up of 7.3 years, the high-dose intensity MVAC regimen was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P = .042), with a 5-year survival rate of 22%, compared with 14% in patients treated with the classic MVAC regimen.

The high-dose intensity MVAC regimen was also associated with higher response rates (72% vs. 58%; P = .016), improved median PFS (9.5 months vs. 8.1 months; P = .017), and decreased neutropenic fever (10% vs. 26%, P < .001), although only 19% of patients treated with a classic MVAC regimen ever received G-CSF.[32][Level of evidence A1] An imbalance in baseline prognostic factors (i.e., visceral metastases were found in 37 patients randomly assigned to the high-dose MVAC regimen and 47 patients assigned to the classic MVAC regimen) may account, in part, for these results.

Source links and citations

A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial compared GC with MVAC in 405 patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

GC yielded response rates, time-to-progression, and OS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82–1.32; P = .75) similar to MVAC, but GC had a better safety profile and was better tolerated than MVAC.[33][Level of evidence A1]

Source links and citations

A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial compared GC with MVAC in 405 patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Although this study was not designed to show the equivalence of the two regimens, the similar efficacy and reduced toxic effects of GC make it a reasonable alternative in patients who may not tolerate the MVAC regimen.

Other chemotherapy regimens that have shown activity in metastatic bladder cancer include single-agent paclitaxel, single-agent gemcitabine, single-agent pemetrexed, carboplatin combined with either gemcitabine or paclitaxel, and gemcitabine combined with paclitaxel. There are no phase III trials demonstrating a survival or quality-of-life benefit from second-line chemotherapy.[13,16,18,19,27,40-52]

Source links and citations

Publication references

Read the original reference and check its publication notices.

Preserved source evidence · Not medical advice