Chronological transition in outcome of second-line treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer after pembrolizumab approval: a multicenter retrospective analysis.

Department of Nephro-urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya City University, Kawasumi 1, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku 467-8601, Nagoya, Japan. Department of Nephro-urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya City University, Kawasumi 1, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku 467-8601, Nagoya, Japan. naiki@med.nagoya-cu.ac.jp. Department of Pharmacy, Nagoya City University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. Department of Experimental Pathology and Tumor Biology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan. Department of Urology, Toyota Kosei Hospital, Toyota City, Japan. Department of Urology, Konan Hospital, Konan City, Japan. Department of Urology, Kainan Hospital, Yatomi City, Japan.

International journal of clinical oncology. 2022;(1):165-174
Full text from:

Abstract

BACKGROUND After first-line chemotherapy failure, metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients undergo pembrolizumab (PEM) or gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) therapy. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of second-line GD or PEM for mUC patients. METHODS A total of 198 mUC patients from Nagoya City University and affiliated hospitals who received second-line treatment were grouped according to immune check point inhibitor (ICI) availability: Groups A (pre-ICI: n = 104) and B (post-ICI: n = 94). We compared clinical outcomes using Kaplan-Meier curves. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses assessed potential prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median OS was significantly longer for Group B [median 13.6 months, 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.6-17.6] than A (7.6 months, 5.3-8.8). By sub-group analysis, patients received no additional treatment (Naïve, n = 70), or PEM or GD (Salvage, n = 24) in Group B, with median OS of Naïve and A groups similar. Compared to the Salvage group, significant differences in OS were observed (median 7.6 months, 95% CI 5.3-8.8; Group A, 7.6 months, 4.7-13.8; Naïve, 25.7 months, 14.0-31.0; p < 0.01). For the Salvage group, OS for sequential treatment of GD-salvage PEM and PEM-salvage GD patients was similar (p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis showed a low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and high geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) as significant prognostic factors affecting long OS [95% CI 1.12-3.45, hazard ratio (HR): 1.97; 95% CI 0.24-0.71, 0.41, respectively]. CONCLUSION Second-line GD or PEM therapy for mUC patients showed equivalent survival benefits. GNRI and NLR are prognostic biomarkers for survival outcome.

Methodological quality

Publication Type : Multicenter Study

Metadata