Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.
Antineoplastic agents
Cisplatin
Drug therapy
Platinum compounds
Urinary bladder neoplasms
Urologic neoplasms
carboplatin
combination
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
20
04
2021
accepted:
23
07
2021
pubmed:
7
8
2021
medline:
22
12
2021
entrez:
6
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases.
CONCLUSION
After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34355457
doi: 10.1002/onco.13925
pmc: PMC8649023
doi:
Substances chimiques
Platinum
49DFR088MY
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1026-1034Informations de copyright
© 2021 AlphaMed Press.
Références
Urology. 2007 Mar;69(3):479-84
pubmed: 17382149
Immunotherapy. 2017 Sep;9(12):951-954
pubmed: 28971748
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1850-5
pubmed: 20231682
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):338-348
pubmed: 31340094
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021 Apr;19(2):125-134
pubmed: 33309564
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Oct;17(10):3173-81
pubmed: 10506615
Investig Clin Urol. 2018 Sep;59(5):285-296
pubmed: 30182073
J Urol. 2016 Feb;195(2):277-82
pubmed: 26292040
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;37(29):2592-2600
pubmed: 31356140
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Aug;14(4):331-40
pubmed: 26589729
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1218-1230
pubmed: 32945632
Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63(4):717-23
pubmed: 23206856
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4602-8
pubmed: 16034041
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 1;39(22):2474-2485
pubmed: 33929895
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Apr;13(2):178-84
pubmed: 25450035
Ann Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):49-61
pubmed: 26487582
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1015-1026
pubmed: 28212060