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)

Melissa Bersanelli, Sebastiano Buti, Alessio Cortellini, Marco Bandini, Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Filippo Pederzoli, Elena Farè, Daniele Raggi, Patrizia Giannatempo, Ugo De Giorgi, Umberto Basso, Tania Losanno, Daniele Santini, Claudia Mucciarini, Marcello Tucci, Rosa Tambaro, Azzurra Farnesi, Orazio Caffo, Antonello Veccia, Emanuele NaglieriAlberto Briganti, Giuseppe Procopio, Sandro Pignata, Andrea Necchi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical Medicine Insights: Oncology
Volume15
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Keywords

  • chemotherapy
  • immune checkpoint inhibitors
  • immunotherapy
  • metastatic urothelial carcinoma
  • Urothelial cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this