Atezolizumab in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Who Have Progressed After First-line Chemotherapy: Results of Real-life Experiences.


Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 16 07 2020
revised: 02 09 2020
accepted: 18 09 2020
pubmed: 4 10 2020
medline: 14 4 2022
entrez: 3 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Atezolizumab (ATZ) has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in previous studies in patients with locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma. To compare the real-life experience and data of clinical trials on ATZ treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients with urothelial cancer treated with ATZ after progression on first-line chemotherapy from an expanded access program were retrospectively studied. Data of patients were obtained from their files and hospital records. Safety was evaluated for patients treated with at least one cycle of ATZ. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints are overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and safety profile of patients. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate median follow-up and estimate PFS and OS. Data of 115 enrolled patients were analyzed. Most of the patients (92.3%, n = 106) had received chemotherapy regimen only once prior to ATZ. The median follow-up duration was 23.5 mo. The complete response rate, partial response rate, and ORR were 8.7% (n = 10), 20.0% (n = 23), and 28.7% (n = 33), respectively. The median duration of response was 20.4 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.47-28.8). Of the 33 patients who responded to treatment, 60% (n = 20) had an ongoing response at the time of the analysis. PFS and OS with ATZ were 3.8 mo (95% CI, 2.25-5.49) and 9.8 mo (95% CI, 6.7-12.9), respectively. All-cause and any-grade adverse events were observed in 113 (98%) patients. Of the patients, 64% experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade and 24 (21.2%) had a grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event. Limitations of the study included its retrospective design, and determination of treatment response based on clinical notes and local radiographic studies. In these real-life data, ATZ was effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. ATZ is an effective and tolerable treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma in our study, similar to previously reported trials. Atezolizumab is effective and well-tolerated in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who progressed with first-line chemotherapy, consistent with the outcomes of the previous clinical trials in this setting.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Atezolizumab (ATZ) has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in previous studies in patients with locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To compare the real-life experience and data of clinical trials on ATZ treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
Patients with urothelial cancer treated with ATZ after progression on first-line chemotherapy from an expanded access program were retrospectively studied. Data of patients were obtained from their files and hospital records. Safety was evaluated for patients treated with at least one cycle of ATZ.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints are overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and safety profile of patients. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate median follow-up and estimate PFS and OS.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Data of 115 enrolled patients were analyzed. Most of the patients (92.3%, n = 106) had received chemotherapy regimen only once prior to ATZ. The median follow-up duration was 23.5 mo. The complete response rate, partial response rate, and ORR were 8.7% (n = 10), 20.0% (n = 23), and 28.7% (n = 33), respectively. The median duration of response was 20.4 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.47-28.8). Of the 33 patients who responded to treatment, 60% (n = 20) had an ongoing response at the time of the analysis. PFS and OS with ATZ were 3.8 mo (95% CI, 2.25-5.49) and 9.8 mo (95% CI, 6.7-12.9), respectively. All-cause and any-grade adverse events were observed in 113 (98%) patients. Of the patients, 64% experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade and 24 (21.2%) had a grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event. Limitations of the study included its retrospective design, and determination of treatment response based on clinical notes and local radiographic studies.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In these real-life data, ATZ was effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. ATZ is an effective and tolerable treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma in our study, similar to previously reported trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
Atezolizumab is effective and well-tolerated in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who progressed with first-line chemotherapy, consistent with the outcomes of the previous clinical trials in this setting.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33008789
pii: S2405-4569(20)30269-8
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.09.010
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized 0
atezolizumab 52CMI0WC3Y

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1061-1066

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Deniz Tural (D)

Bakirköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: deniztural@gmail.com.

Ömer Fatih Ölmez (ÖF)

Medipol University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Ahmet Taner Sümbül (AT)

Medical Faculty, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey.

Mehmet Artaç (M)

Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University Meram, Konya, Turkey.

Nail Özhan (N)

Medical Faculty, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.

Emre Akar (E)

Bakirköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Burcu Çakar (B)

Medical Faculty, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.

Osman Köstek (O)

Medical Faculty, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.

Meltem Ekenel (M)

Istanbul University Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Mustafa Erman (M)

Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Hasan Şenol Coşkun (HŞ)

Medical Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.

Fatih Selçukbiricik (F)

Medical Faculty, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Özge Keskin (Ö)

Medical Faculty, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.

Fatma Paksoy Türköz (FP)

MedicalPark Goztepe Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Kerem Oruç (K)

Medical Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.

Selami Bayram (S)

Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.

Uğur Yılmaz (U)

MedicalPark Izmir Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.

İrem Bilgetekin (İ)

Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara OncologyTraining and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Birol Yıldız (B)

Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Mehmet Ali Nahit Şendur (MAN)

Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Nail Paksoy (N)

Istanbul University Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Ahmet Dirican (A)

Medical Faculty, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.

Dilek Erdem (D)

MedicalPark Samsun Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.

Meltem Selam (M)

Liv Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Özgür Tanrıverdi (Ö)

Medical Faculty, Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey.

Semra Paydaş (S)

Medical Faculty, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.

Zuhat Urakçı (Z)

Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.

Elif Atağ (E)

Medical Faculty, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.

Sabri Güncan (S)

Medical Faculty, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.

Yüksel Ürün (Y)

Medical Faculty, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.

Ali Alkan (A)

Osmaniye State Hospital, Osmaniye, Turkey.

Ali Osman Kaya (AO)

Medicana Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Deniz Tataroğlu Özyükseler (DT)

Istanbul Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Halil Taşkaynatan (H)

Katip Celebi University Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.

Mustafa Yıldırım (M)

MedicalPark Gaziantep Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey.

Müge Sönmez (M)

Ordu State Hospital, Ordu, Turkey.

Tuğba Başoğlu (T)

Medical Faculty, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Şeyda Gündüz (Ş)

Antalya Memorial Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.

Saadettin Kılıçkap (S)

Hacettepe University Institute of Oncology, Ankara, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH