Urothelial carcinoma in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Khalife ◽  
Claude Chahine ◽  
Manal Kordahi ◽  
Tony Felefly ◽  
Hampig Raphael Kourie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Invasive Disease ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Muscle Invasive

Bladder cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer worldwide. The majority of patients present with nonmuscle invasive disease, while 20% of the patients are diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The treatment of nonmuscle invasive disease is endoscopic resection followed by intravesical adjuvant treatment for high risk patients. The standard treatment of localized muscle-invasive disease is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the first-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma as second-line treatment or first-line in platinum-ineligible patients. Recently, pembrolizumab have been approved in BCG-refractory nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. This review summarizes the current evidence concerning immunotherapy in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma.

Atezolizumab-induced myositis and myocarditis in a patient with metastatic urothelial carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. e236357
Author(s):  
Mary Sessums ◽  
Siva Yarrarapu ◽  
Pramod K Guru ◽  
Devang K Sanghavi
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
History Of ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer therapy in the past decade. Although they have been indicated to treat a diverse range of malignant neoplasms, they are also associated with various immune-related adverse effects. We report the case of a 74-year-old man with a history of urothelial carcinoma who had atezolizumab-induced myocarditis and myositis resulting in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, despite the discontinuation of atezolizumab and aggressive treatment with corticosteroids. This case highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for early diagnosis and treatment of immune-related adverse events. Physicians must be aware of the risks associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and have a basic knowledge regarding their management.

scholarly journals Perioperative Systemic Treatment for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 7201
Author(s):  
In-Ho Kim ◽  
Hyo-Jin Lee
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Perspectives ◽  
Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Muscle Invasive

Radical cystectomy is the primary treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer; however, approximately 50% of patients develop metastatic disease within 2 years of diagnosis, which results in dismal prognosis. Therefore, systemic treatment is important to improve the prognosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Currently, several guidelines recommend cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy, and adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended in patients who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently become the standard treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Owing to their clinical benefits, several immune checkpoint inhibitors, with or without other agents (including other immunotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and emerging agents such as antibody drug conjugates), are being extensively investigated in perioperative settings. Several studies for perioperative immunotherapy have shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors have promising efficacy with relatively low toxicity, and have explored the predictive molecular biomarkers. Herein, we review the current evidence and discuss the future perspectives of perioperative systemic treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

scholarly journals First-Line Chemotherapy Response Is a Predictive Factor for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Treatment in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma, a Real World Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian-Ri Li ◽  
Shian-Shiang Wang ◽  
Kevin Lu ◽  
Chuan-Shu Chen ◽  
Chen-Li Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
The Other ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Abstract Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become important tools for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). However, the clinical strategy using ICIs and chemotherapy is still controversy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of clinical parameters in aUC patients with ICIs treatment.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed aUC patients who received atezolizumab and pembrolizumab between January 2015 and October 2020. The associations between baseline demographics and clinical outcomes were evaluated.Results: Of the 74 included patients, the median age was 67 years. Among them, 53 patients received atezolizumab and the other 21 received pembrolizumab. There were 50 patients receiving first line ICIs therapy and the other 24 received second line monotherapy. Fifty-two (83.87%, 52/62) received cisplatin among all chemotherapy patients. The median progression free survival was 10.94 months and the overall survival was 28.44 months. Poor chemotherapy response or no chemotherapy, liver metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status and higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were associated with higher risk of diseases progression (HR=5.70, 95% CI 2.04-15.90, p=0.001, HR=6.08, 95% CI 1.79-20.57, p=0.004; HR=5.40, 95% CI 1.76-16.57, p=0.003; HR=6.08, 95% CI 2.56-14.44, p<0.001 and HR= 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03, P=0.002 respectively). Liver metastases and WBC before ICI were associated with increased death risk (HR=11.95, 95%CI 3.22-44.34, p<0.001; HR=1.0001, 95% CI 1.00001-1.00002, p=0.036 respectively) while ICI response was associated with decreased death (HR=0.22, 95%CI 0.08-0.62, p=0.004). Chemotherapy responders were associated with better ICI treatment response (OR=6.52, 95%CI 1.45-29.24, p=0.014) while lymph node metastases and poor ECOG was associated with poor ICI response (OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.10-0.94, p=0.038; OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.11-0.95, p=0.040).Conclusions: Our data showed predictive role of first-line chemotherapy response to ICIs treatment efficacy in aUC patients as well as other prognostic factors, such as ECOG status, serum white blood cell count or NLR and liver metastases.

scholarly journals Treatments of Advanced Non‑Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in an Italian Center: Drug Utilization and the Treatment Costs of Innovative Drugs

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francovito Piantedosi ◽  
Raffaela Cerisoli ◽  
Ciro Battiloro ◽  
Francesca Andreozzi ◽  
Fabiana Vitiello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Target Therapy ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line

AIM: To provide an updated picture of the therapies most commonly used in the advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) setting, together with the relevant costs.METHODS: This study considered the clinical records of patients affected by stage IIIb and IV NSCLC treated in the AORN dei Colli - Plesso Monaldi in Naples during the period January 2016-July 2017 and diagnosed since 2014, as well as the pathology lab database. Multivariate analyses were performed in order to identify the main predictors of time to next treatment and the main cost drivers.RESULTS: Data were collected on 575 patients, who were mainly affected by adenocarcinoma (62%) and squamous cell carcinoma (34%). 64% of patients were reported having been tested for molecular biomarkers (among the patients tested, 13% were EGFR+, 4% Alk t, and 1% ROS1 t). In accordance with the international guidelines, chemotherapy – as single agent or platinum-based doublets – was the prevalent first-line treatment, except among EGFR+ and ROS1 t patients, for whom the target therapy was authorized as first-line therapy. As second-line treatment, the target therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab) were the most commonly used treatments. Drug expenditure per patient was remarkably higher in mutated patients (€ 29,053) versus wild-type patients, or patients with unknown mutational status (€ 11,854), who received just chemotherapy. The costs sustained in 2017 are proportionally higher than those sustained in 2016, mainlydue to the increasing eligibility to target therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors and the wider biomarker analysis performed. From multivariate analyses, among the predictors of a longer time to next treatment (TTNT) were a better performance status and target therapy both in first and second line. The therapy for squamous cell carcinoma and other nonadeno histotypes turned out to be less expensive in patients treated just in the first line than that for adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the second line results in increased costs compared to the use of chemotherapy. Also the target therapy in the first line results in an increase in the total costs with respect to chemotherapy in patients who received just a first-line therapy.CONCLUSIONS: Generally, in this study population, the treatments administered are in accordance with the international guidelines. The costs borne by the Health Systems are higher for the target therapy and the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Efficacy of immunotherapy in hepatocholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC): Proof of concept.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16194-e16194
Author(s):  
Osama Diab ◽  
Maloree Khan ◽  
Saqib Abbasi ◽  
Anwaar Saeed ◽  
Anup Kasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Liver Cancers ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16194 Background: Hepatocholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC) is a rare form of cancer with a poor prognosis. Of all primary liver cancers, the incidence of HCC-CC ranges from 0.4 to 14.2%. HCC-CC is a mixed carcinoma with findings of both hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a potent first line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma with multiple clinical trial showing effectiveness in cholangiocarcinoma. HCC-CC has limited proven treatment options as patients are generally excluded from clinical trials. In this study we reviewed outcomes of patients with HCC-CC who received immune checkpoint inhibitor in a single center. Methods: Records of patients who had a pathological confirmed HCC-CC by a subspecialized hepatic pathologist at the University of Kansas medical center were reviewed. We identified 6 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC-CC that received immune checkpoint inhibitor between February 2017 and January 2021. Baseline characteristics were obtained, as well as best response, line of therapy, and duration of response. Results: Of the six patients 4 (66%) received PD-1 inhibitor alone and 2 (34%) received combination therapy with CTLA-4 inhibitor for the treatment of HCC-CC. There were 3 (50%) females and 6 (100%) with prior hepatitis C infection. four (66%) patients had metastatic disease and 2 had locally unresectable advanced disease. Objective response rate was 83.3%. One patient achieved complete response and had a treatment holiday after receiving treatment for 2 years, and restarted immunotherapy upon relapse. Four patients had a partial response, of which two passed away after disease progression. One patient had stable disease on 2 different lines of immunotherapy then progressed. Of those who responded, one patient received immunotherapy, 3 (50%) received liver directed therapy and two received chemotherapy or Lenvatinib as first line treatment (Table). Conclusions: Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate potential activity in patients with HCC-CC without unexpected side effect in this unmet need high-risk population. Larger studies are needed to confirm activity and efficacy in this setting.[Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant or adjuvant immunotherapy in bladder cancer: biological opportunity or clinical utility?

2021 ◽  
pp. 030089162110616
Author(s):  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
Gianluca Perego ◽  
Ivano Vavassori ◽  
Andrea Luciani
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Cancer Of The Bladder ◽  
Muscle Invasive

In urothelial cancer of the bladder, the introduction of immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors represents progress in the management of the disease’s early and advanced stages. In particular, recent studies have implemented these drugs in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases to treat muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In some studies, patients received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors alone (PURE and ABACUS) to treat muscle invasive bladder cancer, whereas other studies provided this therapy to cisplatin-ineligible patients. Furthermore, a large Phase III study (CheckMate 247) compared placebo with adjuvant nivolumab therapy in patients with high-risk urothelial cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery or surgery alone. Despite some uncertain niches (nonbladder, PD-L1-negative tumors, and node-negative resected cancers), certain biological opportunities (exploring new targets, evaluating in vivo pathologic response, focusing on biomarkers for response) and clinical uses (avoiding chemotherapy at all or in frail patients, attaining similar pathologic complete response rates as in cisplatin-based chemotherapy) are valid reasons for incorporating these agents into the therapeutic armamentarium of medical uro-oncologists.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document