Histological Subtypes and Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade in Advanced Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective Study.
Aged
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
/ therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ therapeutic use
Carcinoma
/ mortality
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Male
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Progression-Free Survival
Proportional Hazards Models
Retrospective Studies
Urologic Neoplasms
/ mortality
bladder cancer
carcinoma
immunotherapy
neuroendocrine tumors
transitional cell
Journal
The Journal of urology
ISSN: 1527-3792
Titre abrégé: J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376374
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
24
1
2020
medline:
4
8
2020
entrez:
24
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Urinary tract cancer can be pure urothelial carcinoma, pure nonurothelial carcinoma or variant urothelial carcinoma (defined here as mixed urothelial carcinoma). Little is known regarding outcomes for patients with variant urothelial carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesized that variant urothelial carcinoma does not compromise immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. We performed a retrospective cohort study across 18 institutions. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data were collected for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were divided into pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma subgroups, with variant urothelial carcinoma further divided by type of variant (ie squamous, neuroendocrine etc). We compared overall response rate using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and progression-free survival and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards. Overall 519 patients were identified, with 395, 406 and 403 included in overall response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival analyses, respectively. Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors between patients with pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma was comparable (28% vs 29%, p=0.90) without significant differences for individual subtypes vs pure urothelial carcinoma. Median overall survival for patients with pure urothelial carcinoma was 11.0 months vs 10.1 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.60), but only 4.6 months for patients with neuroendocrine features (9 patients, HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.40 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.003). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for pure vs 5.2 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.43) and 3.7 months for neuroendocrine features (HR 1.87, 95% CI 0.92-3.79 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.09). Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was comparable across histological types. However, overall survival was worse for patients with tumors containing neuroendocrine features. Variant urothelial carcinoma should not exclude patients from receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31971495
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000761
pmc: PMC7289665
mid: NIHMS1551304
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
63-70Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA086862
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA009515
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002319
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Lancet. 2018 Feb 24;391(10122):748-757
pubmed: 29268948
Eur Urol. 2018 Dec;74(6):741-753
pubmed: 30033047
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020 Jan;26(1):216-219
pubmed: 30832555
Am J Surg Pathol. 2019 Jul;43(7):920-927
pubmed: 31135485
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Jun;15(3):e521-e524
pubmed: 28143711
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jun 1;30(6):970-976
pubmed: 31050707
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Apr 15;24(8):1965-1973
pubmed: 29180607
Eur Urol. 2017 Jul;72(1):54-60
pubmed: 28040351
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1015-1026
pubmed: 28212060
Urology. 2007 Jul;70(1):69-74
pubmed: 17656211
Eur Urol. 2019 Jun;75(6):961-964
pubmed: 30851984
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Jan 1;25(1):210-221
pubmed: 30327311
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119
pubmed: 26996659
Can Urol Assoc J. 2009 Dec;3(6 Suppl 4):S193-8
pubmed: 20019984
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1850-5
pubmed: 20231682
J Clin Pathol. 1989 Mar;42(3):250-3
pubmed: 2703540
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):96-108
pubmed: 27370177
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Jul 1;25(13):3908-3920
pubmed: 30952638
Urology. 2004 Oct;64(4):744-8
pubmed: 15491713
Int Braz J Urol. 2007 May-Jun;33(3):339-45; discussion 346
pubmed: 17626650
BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(5):693-9
pubmed: 21105991
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 26;10(6):e0129268
pubmed: 26114748
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Feb;18(2):212-220
pubmed: 28081914
Hum Pathol. 2018 Sep;79:57-65
pubmed: 29763719
Cell. 2017 Oct 19;171(3):540-556.e25
pubmed: 28988769
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;37(19):1608-1616
pubmed: 31100038
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Oct;17(10):3173-81
pubmed: 10506615