scholarly journals Checkpoint Inhibition for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Chemotherapy—Real-World Clinical Impressions and Comparative Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Fuhrmann ◽  
Julian P. Struck ◽  
Philipp Ivanyi ◽  
Mario W. Kramer ◽  
Marie C. Hupe ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4538-4538
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Geynisman ◽  
Edward Broughton ◽  
Hasan Alhasani ◽  
Yi Hao ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
...  

4538 Background: Knowledge of large-scale real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is limited. We conducted this study to address the lack of knowledge and identify unmet needs in pts with mUC in real-world clinical practice. Methods: The US nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health records–derived, de-identified database, comprised of 280 oncology practices across the US, was utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort analysis of pts diagnosed with mUC between Jan 1, 2011, and Aug 31, 2020. Baseline pt characteristics were assessed descriptively, and treatment patterns were classified by cisplatin (CIS) eligibility. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). In a subgroup analysis of cisplatin-ineligible (CIS-inelig) pts, a multivariable model adjusting for baseline covariates was used to assess survival outcomes. Results: Of 8183 pts with mUC, median age was 73.0 years at diagnosis. Primary tumor sites were bladder (78.5%), upper tract (20.6%), and urethra (0.9%). Median (range) follow-up from mUC diagnosis was 9.7 (0.2-116.6) months. Of 5855 (71.6%) pts who received first-line (1L) systemic therapy, 1764 (30.1%) were CIS eligible (CIS-elig), 2293 (39.2%) were CIS-inelig, and 616 (10.5%) did not receive CIS despite qualifying ECOG PS (0–1) and renal function; CIS eligibility was unknown in 1182 (20.2%). Among all 1L pts, 4380 (74.8%) received chemotherapy and 1410 (24.1%) received immunotherapy (IO); of the IO users, 1345 (95.4%) received monotherapy. Among CIS-elig pts, CIS plus gemcitabine (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, CIS (MVAC) accounted for 1562 (88.5%) of 1L therapy. Among CIS-inelig pts, carboplatin plus gemcitabine (GCa; 36.1%), pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy (18.5%), and atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy (15.1%) were the most common 1L therapies. Across CIS eligibility groups, the most common second-line therapies included pembro, atezo, and GCa; the most common third-line therapies included atezo, pemetrexed, paclitaxel, and GCa. Median OS (95% CI) was longer in pts who received ≥ 1 line of systemic therapy (14.5 [14.0–15.2] months) than in those who did not receive therapy (6.8 [6.2–7.3] months). Median (95% CI) OS and PFS were also longer in CIS-elig pts (OS, 19.7 [18.2–21.4] months; PFS, 11.5 [10.8–12.1] months) than in CIS-inelig pts (OS, 11.4 [10.8–12.0] months; PFS, 7.0 [6.7–7.4] months), irrespective of receiving treatment. In a subgroup analysis of CIS-inelig pts, 1L IO monotherapy was associated with worse OS than 1L chemotherapy (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13–1.40, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: This study of > 8000 mUC pts, of whom almost 30% never received systemic therapy, demonstrates real-world treatment patterns in mUC and highlights the substantial unmet need in this population, in particular for CIS-inelig pts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 455-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso Gómez De Liaño ◽  
Ignacio Duran

Despite intense drug development in the last decade in metastatic urothelial carcinoma and the incorporation of novel compounds to the treatment armamentarium, chemotherapy remains a key treatment strategy for this disease. Platinum-based combinations are still the backbone of first-line therapy in most cases. The role of chemotherapy in the second line has been more ill-defined due to the complexity of this setting, where patient selection remains critical. Nevertheless, two regimens, one in monotherapy (i.e. vinflunine) and one in combination with antiangiogenics (i.e. docetaxel + ramucirumab) have shown efficacy. Immunotherapy through checkpoint inhibition has revealed remarkably durable benefit in a small proportion of patients in the first and second line and is currently the preferred partner for combinations with chemotherapy. Difficult populations such as patients with liver metastases or those progressing to checkpoint inhibition represent a medical challenge and selective ways of delivering cytotoxics, like the antibody–drug conjugates, might represent a valid alternative. This article reviews the current role of chemotherapy in the management of advanced urothelial carcinoma and the ongoing and coming studies involving this treatment strategy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110154
Author(s):  
Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro ◽  
Adriano Gonçalves e Silva ◽  
Andrea Juliana P. de S. Gomes ◽  
Carolina Dutra ◽  
Naira Oliveira Ferreira ◽  
...  

Background: Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Approval was based on a phase II single-arm trial that demonstrated significant activity of erdafitinib in patients with tumors harboring FGFR2/3 alterations. In Brazil, an Expanded Access Program (EAP) provided patients with early access to erdafitinib prior to market authorization. The current report describes characteristics and outcomes of patients with mUC on erdafitinib therapy. Methods: Patients with mUC that failed first- and second-line systemic therapies were screened for FGFR2/3 alterations in primary or metastatic tumor tissues. Patients with FGFR2/3 alterations were selected to receive erdafitinib at the standard dosing schedule and were followed prospectively to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: From 19 April 2019, through 13 March 2020, 47 patients with mUC from 10 Brazilian centers were tested for FGFR2/3 alterations. Alterations in FGFR2/3 were found in 12 patients (25.5%) and all of them were eligible for the EAP. Four patients (33%) had partial response, while two patients (17%) had stable disease. Progressive disease, the best response, was observed in five patients (42%). At a median follow-up of 16.2 months, the median time to treatment failure (TTF) was 2.8 months. When considering only patients with objective response, the median TTF was 5.3 months. Adverse events (AEs) were reported for any grade and grade 3 or higher in 10 patients (83%) and 5 patients (42%), respectively. The most common AE was hyperphosphatemia. Conclusion: This first real-world evidence report of heavily treated patients with mUC confirms the efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in a disease setting with a lack of treatment options.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document