Difference of oncological efficacy between two immune checkpoint inhibitors following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with unresectable, metastatic, advanced urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter real-world Japanese cohort.

Avelumab Chemotherapy Kidney pelvis Pembrolizumab Ureter Urinary bladder neoplasms

Journal

International journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1437-7772
Titre abrégé: Int J Clin Oncol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9616295

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 16 03 2024
accepted: 14 06 2024
medline: 18 6 2024
pubmed: 18 6 2024
entrez: 18 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Maintenance avelumab is currently recommended for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic (mUC) achieving at least stable disease (SD) on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (1L-CT). Pembrolizumab is an alternative therapeutic avenue for this patient cohort in clinical practice. We investigated real-world data, focusing on the correlation between response to 1L-CT and oncological efficacy of subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with avelumab or pembrolizumab. A multicenter database registered 626 patients with mUC diagnosed from 2008-2023; among these, 175 receiving 2-6 cycles of 1L-CT followed by ICI therapy. Patients were categorized based on response to 1L-CT using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (v1.1). Objective response rate on ICI, progression to ICI-free survival (ICI-PFS), and overall survival from start of 1L-CT were compared between avelumab-treated and pembrolizumab-treated patients in each response subgroup. ICI-PFS was significantly longer in patients achieving partial response on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab compared to those receiving avelumab. Notably, patients achieving SD on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab manifested significantly higher objective response rate (14% and 41%, respectively) and prolonged ICI-PFS relative to those receiving avelumab. In contrast, overall survival did not delineate difference between patients treated with avelumab versus pembrolizumab. Similar findings were discerned in the subanalysis of patients having favorable SD (tumor shrinkage, from - 29 to 0%) and unfavorable SD (tumor enlargement, from + 1 to + 19%) on 1L-CT. Our study provides real-world evidence regarding difference of oncological efficacy between maintenance avelumab and subsequent pembrolizumab in patients with mUC who achieved partial response or SD on 1L-CT.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Maintenance avelumab is currently recommended for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic (mUC) achieving at least stable disease (SD) on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (1L-CT). Pembrolizumab is an alternative therapeutic avenue for this patient cohort in clinical practice. We investigated real-world data, focusing on the correlation between response to 1L-CT and oncological efficacy of subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with avelumab or pembrolizumab.
METHODS METHODS
A multicenter database registered 626 patients with mUC diagnosed from 2008-2023; among these, 175 receiving 2-6 cycles of 1L-CT followed by ICI therapy. Patients were categorized based on response to 1L-CT using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (v1.1). Objective response rate on ICI, progression to ICI-free survival (ICI-PFS), and overall survival from start of 1L-CT were compared between avelumab-treated and pembrolizumab-treated patients in each response subgroup.
RESULTS RESULTS
ICI-PFS was significantly longer in patients achieving partial response on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab compared to those receiving avelumab. Notably, patients achieving SD on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab manifested significantly higher objective response rate (14% and 41%, respectively) and prolonged ICI-PFS relative to those receiving avelumab. In contrast, overall survival did not delineate difference between patients treated with avelumab versus pembrolizumab. Similar findings were discerned in the subanalysis of patients having favorable SD (tumor shrinkage, from - 29 to 0%) and unfavorable SD (tumor enlargement, from + 1 to + 19%) on 1L-CT.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study provides real-world evidence regarding difference of oncological efficacy between maintenance avelumab and subsequent pembrolizumab in patients with mUC who achieved partial response or SD on 1L-CT.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38888683
doi: 10.1007/s10147-024-02573-5
pii: 10.1007/s10147-024-02573-5
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

Références

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 pubmed: 33538338
Matsuda T, Okuyama A (2017) Incidence rate for bladder cancer in Japanese in Japan and in the United States from the cancer incidence in five continents. Jpn J Clin Oncol 47:284–285
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyx017 pubmed: 28204563
Miyake M, Nishimura N, Oda Y et al (2024) Enfortumab vedotin following platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced urothelial carcinoma: response, survival and safety analysis from a multicentre real-world Japanese cohort. Jpn J Clin Oncol 54:329–338
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyad170 pubmed: 38061911
Barthelemy P, Loriot Y, Voog E et al (2023) Full analysis from AVENANCE: a real-world study of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance treatment in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.471
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.471
Powles T, Park SH, Voog E et al (2020) Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 383:1218–1230
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002788 pubmed: 32945632
Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ et al (2017) Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 376:1015–1026
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683 pubmed: 28212060 pmcid: 5635424
Alfred Witjes J, Max Bruins H, Carrión A et al (2024) European Association of Urology Guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2023 Guidelines. Eur Urol 85:17–31
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.016 pubmed: 37858453
Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Abern M et al (2022) NCCN Guidelines® insights: bladder cancer, Version 2.2022. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20:866–878
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0041 pubmed: 35948037
Grivas P, Park SH, Voog E et al (2023) Avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma: comprehensive clinical subgroup analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial. Eur Urol 84:95–108
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.030 pubmed: 37121850
Galsky MD, Mortazavi A, Milowsky MI et al (2020) Randomized double-blind phase II study of maintenance pembrolizumab versus placebo after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 38:1797–1806
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03091 pubmed: 32271672 pmcid: 7255983
Vellinga A, Cormican M, Hanahoe B et al (2011) Opt-out as an acceptable method of obtaining consent in medical research: a short report. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:40
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-40 pubmed: 21470399 pmcid: 3079702
Miyake M, Shimizu T, Oda Y et al (2023) Switch-maintenance avelumab immunotherapy following first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: the first Japanese real-world evidence from a multicenter study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 53:253–262
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyac186 pubmed: 36484294
Pfister C, Gravis G, Flechon A et al (2024) Perioperative dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (VESPER): survival endpoints at 5 years in an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 25:255–264
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00587-9 pubmed: 38142702
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 pubmed: 19097774
Banna GL, Cantale O, Bersanelli M et al (2020) Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm. Oncol Rev 14:490
doi: 10.4081/oncol.2020.490 pubmed: 32782728 pmcid: 7385529
Muñoz-Unceta N, Burgueño I, Jiménez E et al (2018) Durvalumab in NSCLC: latest evidence and clinical potential. Ther Adv Med Oncol 10:1758835918804151
doi: 10.1177/1758835918804151 pubmed: 30344651 pmcid: 6187424
Rofi E, Del Re M, Arrigoni E et al (2019) Clinical pharmacology of monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-PD-1 axis in urothelial cancers. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 144:102812
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.09.004 pubmed: 31698313
Grande E, Arranz JÁ, De Santis M et al (2024) Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 25:29–45
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00540-5 pubmed: 38101433
Powles T, Csőszi T, Özgüroğlu M et al (2021) Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 22:931–945
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00152-2 pubmed: 34051178
van der Heijden MS, Sonpavde G, Powles T et al (2023) Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 389:1778–1789
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309863 pubmed: 37870949
Miyake M, Shimizu T, Nishimura N et al (2022) Response to pembrolizumab after dose-reduced cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy is inferior to that after carboplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy in cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 20:196.e1-196.e9
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.006 pubmed: 34916166
Kato M, Kobayashi T, Matsui Y et al (2021) Impact of the objective response to and number of cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma on overall survival of patients treated with pembrolizumab. Int J Urol 28:1261–1267
doi: 10.1111/iju.14686 pubmed: 34545627
Galluzzi L, BuquéA KO et al (2017) Immunogenic cell death in cancer and infectious disease. Nat Rev Immunol 17:97–111
doi: 10.1038/nri.2016.107 pubmed: 27748397

Auteurs

Makito Miyake (M)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan. makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.

Nobutaka Nishimura (N)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Department of Urology, Hirao Hospital, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.

Yuki Oda (Y)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Tatsuki Miyamoto (T)

Department of Urology, Takai Hospital, Tenri, Nara, Japan.

Kota Iida (K)

Department of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

Kuniaki Inoue (K)

Department of Urology, Osaka Gyoumeikan Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

Akira Tachibana (A)

Department of Urology, Hoshigaoka Medical Center, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan.

Takanosuke Yoshikawa (T)

Department of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

Keichi Sakamoto (K)

Department of Urology, Osaka Kaisei Hospital, Yodogawa, Osaka, 532-0003, Japan.

Mikiko Ohnishi (M)

Department of Urology, Nara City Hospital, Nara, Japan.

Fumisato Maesaka (F)

Department of Urology, Saiseikai Chuwa Hospital, Nara, Japan.

Norimi Takamatsu (N)

Department of Urology, Yamatotakada Municipal Hospital, Yamatotakada, Nara, Japan.

Kosuke Mieda (K)

Department of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.

Chihiro Ohmori (C)

Department of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.

Toshihiko Matsubara (T)

Department of Urology, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, Matsusaka, Mie, Japan.

Mitsuru Tomizawa (M)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Takuto Shimizu (T)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Kenta Ohnishi (K)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Shunta Hori (S)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Yosuke Morizawa (Y)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Daisuke Gotoh (D)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Yasushi Nakai (Y)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Kazumasa Torimoto (K)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Nobumichi Tanaka (N)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Kiyohide Fujimoto (K)

Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.

Classifications MeSH