TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical outcome after progressing to frontline and second-line Anti–PD-1/PD-L1 in advanced urothelial cancer[Formula presented]
AU - Gómez de Liaño Lista, Alfonso
AU - van Dijk, Nick
AU - de Velasco Oria de Rueda, Guillermo
AU - Necchi, Andrea
AU - Lavaud, Pernelle
AU - Morales-Barrera, Rafael
AU - Alonso Gordoa, Teresa
AU - Maroto, Pablo
AU - Ravaud, Alain
AU - Durán, Ignacio
AU - Szabados, Bernadett
AU - Castellano, Daniel
AU - Giannatempo, Patrizia
AU - Loriot, Yohann
AU - Carles, Joan
AU - Anguera Palacios, Georgia
AU - Lefort, Felix
AU - Raggi, Daniele
AU - Gross Goupil, Marine
AU - Powles, Thomas
AU - van der Heijden, Michiel S.
N1 - Funding Information: Our data indicate that a substantial number of mUC patients who progress to ICIs do not receive further systemic treatment, including 43% of patients treated in the frontline ICI setting. The most striking finding is that patients treated with frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy, whereas outcome of platinum-refractory patients was in line with historical data. Our data on frontline ICIs are worrisome and provide rationale to restrict frontline ICIs to patients with a low risk of clinical deterioration during the first months of immunotherapy treatment. Predictive clinical factors of first-line immunotherapy failure may include a high disease burden, assessed by metastatic site involvement and disease patterns. Still, the retrospective nature of this analysis limits the interpretation of our data, encouraging further validation. Until randomized clinical trial data become available, these results add relevant information to medical decision making. Author contributions: Alfonso Gómez de Liaño Lista had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design : Gómez de Liaño Lista, van Dijk, Powles, Van der Heijden. Acquisition of data : Gómez de Liaño Lista, van Dijk, de Velasco Oria de Rueda, Necchi, Lavaud, Morales-Barrera, Gordoa, Maroto, Ravaud, Durán, Szabados, Castellano, Giannatempo, Loriot, Joan Carles, Palacios, Lefort, Raggi, Goupil, Powles, Van der Heijden. Analysis and interpretation of data : Gómez de Liaño Lista, van Dijk, Powles, Van der Heijden. Drafting of the manuscript : Gómez de Liaño Lista, van Dijk, Powles, Van der Heijden. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content : Gómez de Liaño Lista, van Dijk, de Velasco Oria de Rueda, Necchi, Lavaud, Morales-Barrera, Gordoa, Maroto, Ravaud, Durán, Szabados, Castellano, Giannatempo, Loriot, Carles, Palacios, Lefort, Raggi, Goupil, Powles, Van der Heijden. Statistical analysis: Gómez de Liaño Lista. Obtaining funding: None. Administrative, technical, or material support: None. Supervision : Van der Heijden. Other : None. Financial disclosures: Alfonso Gómez de Liaño Lista certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Alfonso Gómez de Liaño Lista: consultancies—Roche-Genentech; honoraria for educational activities—AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech; travel/registration expenses—Pfizer, Roche-Genentech. Guillermo de Velasco Oria de Rueda: honoraria (consultancies/educational)—Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Bayer, Roche, Astellas, and MSD; research grants—Pfizer and Roche. Teresa Alonso Gordoa: consultancies—BMS, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Roche. Ignacio Durán: advisory boards—Roche-Genentech, BMS, and MSD; honoraria for educational activities—Roche-Genentech, BMS, MSD, and Astellas; research funding (to institution): Astra-Zeneca and Roche-Genentech; travel/registration expenses—Astra-Zeneca. Daniel Castellano: honoraria for consultancies/educational activities—Roche, Janssen, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, and Boehringer. T. Powles: consultancy fees—BMS, Pfizer, Merck/MSD, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, and Exelexis; research funding—AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech. M.S. vander Heijden: consultancy fees (to institute)—AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Roche/Genentech, BMS, and Merck/MSD; research funding—BMS and Astellas. Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 European Association of Urology Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/2
Y1 - 2020/2
N2 - Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce. Objective: To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017. Intervention: Post-PD management as per standard practice. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model. Results and limitations: A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10–0.51, p < 0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13–0.36, p < 0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0–8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9–3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p = 0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p = 0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p = 0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p = 0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p < 0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis. Conclusions: Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy Patient summary: Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy.
AB - Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce. Objective: To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017. Intervention: Post-PD management as per standard practice. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model. Results and limitations: A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10–0.51, p < 0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13–0.36, p < 0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0–8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9–3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p = 0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p = 0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p = 0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p = 0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p < 0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis. Conclusions: Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy Patient summary: Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy.
KW - Bladder cancer
KW - Immune checkpoint inhibitors
KW - Immunotherapy
KW - PD-1
KW - PD-L1
KW - Urothelial carcinoma
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075351953&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.004
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 31699525
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 77
SP - 269
EP - 276
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 2
ER -