Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Progression to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Retrospective Analysis by the Meet-Uro Group (Meet-URO 1 Study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently the standard of care for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after the failure of previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The choice of further therapy after ICI progression is a new challenge, and scarce data support it. We aimed to examine the outcomes of mUC patients after progression to ICI, especially when receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected from clinical records of mUC patients whose disease progressed to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy at 14 Italian centers. Patients were grouped according to ICI therapy setting into SALVAGE (ie, ICI delivered ⩾ second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy) and NAÏVE (ie, first-line therapy) groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among subgroups. Cox regression assessed the effect of treatments after progression to ICI on OS. Objective response rate (ORR) was calculated as the sum of partial and complete radiologic responses.

Results

The study population consisted of 201 mUC patients who progressed after ICI: 59 in the NAÏVE cohort and 142 in the SALVAGE cohort. Overall, 52 patients received chemotherapy after ICI progression (25.9%), 20 (9.9%) received ICI beyond progression, 115 (57.2%) received best supportive care only, and 14 (7.0%) received investigational drugs. Objective response rate to chemotherapy in the post-ICI setting was 23.1% (28.0% in the NAÏVE group and 18.5% in the SALVAGE group). Median PFS and OS to chemotherapy after ICI-PD was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3-11) and 13 months (95% CI: 7-NA) for the NAÏVE group; 3 months (95% CI: 2-NA) and 9 months (95% CI: 6-NA) for the SALVAGE group, respectively. Overall survival from ICI initiation was 17 months for patients receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.09, p < 0.001), versus 8 months for patients receiving ICI beyond progression (HR = 0.13, p < 0.001), and 2 months for patients who did not receive further active treatment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Chemotherapy administered after ICI progression for mUC patients is advisable irrespective of the treatment line.

SUBMITTER: Bersanelli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma do not benefit significantly from Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) use. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and activity of ICIs, in terms of Overall Survival (OS), Progression-free survival (PFS), and Objective Response Rate (ORR). We systematically searched for articles from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of science from their inception to December 1, 2020 with no language restrictions. The search was performed to identify all clinical trials (phase I, phase II, phase III) of ICIs for treating urothelial carcinoma. The endpoints of the meta-analysis were OS, PFS, and ORR, compared unselected patients and in the subgroup of patients characterized by high expression of PD-L1 (PD-L1 selected patients). Sixteen studies comprising 5559 patients were identified, of which data for OS comparison were available from 4 RCTs (2342 patients), two studies for PFS (649 patients), and four RCTs were eligible for ORR analysis (2921 patients). Both pembrolizumab and atezolizumab have showed to improve OS compared to chemotherapy in unselected patients (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93, P = .0001, I2 = 60%), while the difference was not significant in PD-L1 selected patients (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.07, P = .23, I2 = 0%). PFS difference was not observed in neither unselected population nor PD-L1 selected patients, the pooled HR of PFS for immunotherapy compared to control treatment was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74-1.49, P = .79, I2 = 85%) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.68-1.03, P = .09, I2 = 0%, respectively. Similar result was observed in ORR, the pooled HR of ORR for immunotherapy compared to control treatment was 1.45 (95% CI 0.53-3.98, P = .47, I2 = 95%) and 2.19 (95% CI 0.79-6.08, P = .13, I2 = 83%), respectively. Immunotherapy could significantly improve survival advantage in unselected patients but not in PD-L1 selected population, indicating that PD-L1 expression may not be a reliable marker in previously platinum-treated patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the current treatment landscape in advanced urothelial cancer (aUC)/metastatic urothelial cancer and in particular to review the relevant literature highlighting recent advances in the treatment of patients with aUC after progression on chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI).BackgroundaUC is a very aggressive disease with poor outcomes. Over the past several years, its treatment landscape has seen significant advances with the approval of ICI and targeted agents, which have led to improved outcomes. The current standard of care for most patients with aUC involves platinum-based chemotherapy followed by ICI after progression or as switch maintenance therapy (if no progression after chemotherapy). Treatment of patients following progression on ICI is more challenging, but novel therapies have been approved, such as erdafitinib for tumors with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) or FGFR3 activating mutation or fusion (can also be used following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy), enfortumab vedotin (EV) and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in an unselected patient population. Many other trials in this space are currently ongoing and other promising agents may also potentially become available in the future.MethodsNarrative overview of the recent literature relevant to the treatment of advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer following progression on chemotherapy and ICI was undertaken. Relevant literature was obtained from review of computerized databases including pubmed.gov and proceedings of major conferences including American Society of clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meetings, GU ASCO Symposia and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Meetings.ConclusionsIn this narrative review, we highlight the current dynamic treatment landscape in aUC, emphasizing the recent important developments and a few examples of ongoing clinical trials. In particular, we focus on therapy options available following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy and ICI, a treatment space where until recently there had been no FDA-approved treatment options. The recent pivotal trials of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) that led to FDA approvals in this space are highlighted, as are other agents currently in development. We conclude by discussing future directions and ongoing challenges in this evolving disease space.