scholarly journals Treatment Strategies and Metabolic Pathway Regulation in Urothelial Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (23) ◽  
pp. 8993
Author(s):  
Huang-Yu Yang ◽  
Chao-Yi Wu ◽  
Jia-Jin Chen ◽  
Tao-Han Lee
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Metabolic Pathways ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Comprehensive Review

For a long time, cisplatin-based chemotherapy had been viewed as first-line chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, many patients with UC had been classified as cisplatin-ineligible who can only receive alternative chemotherapy with poor treatment response, and the vast majority of the cisplatin-eligible patients eventually progressed, even those with objective response with cisplatin-based chemotherapy initially. By understanding tumor immunology in UC, immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeting on programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) pathways, had been proven as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible metastatic UC and as second-line treatment for patients with platinum-refractory metastatic UC by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2020, JAVEIN bladder 100 further reported that PD-L1 inhibitors showed benefits on prolonged survival and progression-free survival as maintenance therapy. Besides targeting on immune checkpoint, manipulation of the tumor microenvironment by metabolic pathways intervention, including inhibition on tumor glycolysis, lactate accumulation and exogenous glutamine uptake, had been investigated in the past few years. In this comprehensive review, we start by introducing traditional chemotherapy of UC, and then we summarize current evidences supporting the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlight ongoing clinical trials. Lastly, we reviewed the tumor metabolic characteristic and the anti-tumor treatments targeting on metabolic pathways.

scholarly journals Treatment Strategies and Metabolic Pathway Regulation in Urothelial Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huang-Yu Yang ◽  
Chao-Yi Wu ◽  
Jia-Jin Chen ◽  
Tao-Ha Lee
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Metabolic Pathways ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Tumor Glycolysis ◽  
Platinum Refractory ◽  
Pathway Regulation

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy has long been viewed as the first-line chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, many patients with UC have been classified as “cisplatin-ineligible patient”, which requires alternative chemotherapy due to their poor responses. In fact, vast majority of those who initially responded to cisplatin-based chemotherapy eventually progressed. Understanding of UC tumor immunology provided an immunopathogenic bases for immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, to treat cisplatin ineligible metastatic UC and patients with platinum-refractory metastatic UC. In 2020, data from the trail further showed that PD-L1 inhibitors benefit prolonged survival and progression-free survival as maintenance therapy. Besides immune-targeting therapies, manipulation of tumor microenvironment via metabolic pathways alternation, such as inhibiting tumor glycolysis, lactate accumulation and exogenous glutamine uptake, has been investigated in the past few years. In this comprehensive review, we started by introducing traditional chemotherapy of UC, and summarized current evidences supporting the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlighted ongoing clinical trials. Lastly, we reviewed the tumor metabolic characteristic and the anti-tumor treatments targeting metabolic pathways.

scholarly journals Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Antonio Lopez-Beltran ◽  
Alessia Cimadamore ◽  
Ana Blanca ◽  
Francesco Massari ◽  
Nuno Vau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Durable Response ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

A number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as first-line therapy in case of cisplatin-ineligible patients or as second-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) of the bladder. About 30% of patients with mUC will respond to ICIs immunotherapy. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression detected by immunohistochemistry seems to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with mUC as supported by the objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) associated with the response observed in most clinical trials. Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, demonstrated better OS respective to chemotherapy in a randomized phase 3 study for second-line treatment of mUC. Nivolumab, a PD-1 antibody, also demonstrated an OS benefit when compared to controls. Atezolizumab, Durvalumab, and Avelumab antibodies targeting PD-L1 have also received approval as second-line treatments for mUC with durable response for more than 1 year in selected patients. Atezolizumab and Pembrolizumab also received approval for first-line treatment of patients that are ineligible for cisplatin. A focus on the utility of ICIs in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or as combination with chemotherapy, is the basis of some ongoing trials. The identification of a clinically useful biomarker, single or in association, to determine the optimal ICIs treatment for patients with mUC is very much needed as emphasized by the current literature. In this review, we examined relevant clinical trial results with ICIs in patients with mUC alone or as part of drug combinations; emphasis is also placed on the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. The current landscape of selected biomarkers of response to ICIs including anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry is also briefly reviewed.

scholarly journals Results from a meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors in first-line renal cancer patients: does PD-L1 matter?

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591986190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giandomenico Roviello ◽  
Silvia Paola Corona ◽  
Gabriella Nesi ◽  
Enrico Mini
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
First Line

Background: The aim of this study was to perform a literature-based meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of the novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), focusing on the predictive role of PD-L1 expression. Methods: The primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response. We planned a subgroup analysis for overall survival according to PD-L1 status. Results: Five studies were included in the analysis for a total of 4063 cases. Overall survival was greater in PD-L1 positive tumours (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36–0.67; p < 0.001). The pooled analysis of the unselected cases showed a statistically significative improvement in PFS with the use of ICIs (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.72–0.99; p = 0.04) and we found a greater PFS benefit (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57–0.74; p < 0.001) in patients with PD-L1 positive tumours. Conclusions: This study supports the efficacy of ICIs and, although a significant clinical benefit has been reported in PD-L1 negative patients, a greater efficacy of ICIs was observed in PD-L1 positive patients. More prospective randomized studies are needed to clarify the role of PDL-1 status in metastatic RCC treated with ICIs.

scholarly journals Real-world outcomes of regorafenib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced or metastatic microsatellite stable colorectal cancer: A multicenter study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaili Yang ◽  
Lu Han ◽  
Shikai Wu ◽  
Xiujuan Qu ◽  
Qin Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Best Response

Abstract Background Treatment strategies are limited for patients with chemotherapy refractory microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with regorafenib in this population in routine clinical practice. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who received at least one dose of ICIs combined with regorafenib in 14 Chinese medical centers. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on February 2020 (NCT04771715). Results Eighty-four patients received ICIs combined with regorafenib from January 2019 to January 2021. Most patients (91%) received two or more systemic treatment lines before the study treatment. Seventy-six patients (90%) had confirmed MSS status. At a median follow-up of 5.5 months, four patients achieved partial response (5%) and 37 patients achieved stable disease (45%) as the best response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.1 months, and the median overall survival was 17.3 months. Eleven patients (13%) remained progression-free for more than 6 months. Baseline liver metastasis (HR 1.98, 95%CI 1.07–3.69, P = 0.03) and neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) of ≥ 1.5 (HR 2.83, 95%CI 1.00–7.98, P = 0.05) were associated with shorter PFS in multivariate analysis. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 16 patients (19%). Conclusion The combination of ICIs with regorafenib can be a valuable treatment option for a proportion of patients with chemotherapy refractory MSS colorectal cancer. Patients with no liver metastasis and a low NLR at baseline may derive most benefit from this strategy.

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.

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]

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors versus other systemic therapies in advanced head and neck cancer: a network meta-analysis

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 541-555
Author(s):  
Lingrong Tang ◽  
Tingting Liu ◽  
Jun Chen ◽  
Jun Dang ◽  
Guang Li
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Systemic Therapies

Aim: We assessed the efficiency of immune checkpoint inhibitors relative to other systemic therapies in previously treated recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer. Materials & methods: Relative treatment effects were assessed from eligible randomized controlled trials using Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results: Among 15 trials evaluating 14 treatments, nivolumab achieved the best overall survival (OS) benefit; zalutumumab and buparlisib + paclitaxel provided the best progression-free survival benefit and objective response rate. Buparlisib + paclitaxel and zalutumumab were associated with the best OS rate at 6 and 12 months, respectively; nivolumab yielded the best OS rate at 18–24 months. Conclusion: Nivolumab was the most favorable treatment. Zalutumumab and buparlisib + paclitaxel had better efficiency, and might be a better selection for patients with programmed death-ligand 1-low/negative tumors than other treatments.

scholarly journals Salvage Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Prior Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (27) ◽  
pp. 3088-3094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Gul ◽  
Tyler F. Stewart ◽  
Charlene M. Mantia ◽  
Neil J. Shah ◽  
Emily Stern Gatof ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

PURPOSE Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti–PD-1 pathway–targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti–PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed. RESULTS Forty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients. CONCLUSION Ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document