Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
J Urol. 2021 Feb;205(2):414-419. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001371. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
Current first line treatment options in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma unfit to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy include PD-1/L1 inhibitors and carboplatin containing chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of these therapies remains unclear.
We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis. Consecutive cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line carboplatin containing chemotherapy followed sequentially by second line PD-1/L1 inhibitor, or the reverse order, were included. Patient demographics, objective response, time to treatment failure for first line and second line therapy, interval between end of first line and initiation of second line treatment (Interval) and overall survival were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the association of sequencing on overall survival.
In this multicenter retrospective study we identified 146 cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy followed by second line carboplatin containing chemotherapy (group 1, 43) or the reverse sequence (group 2, 103). In the overall cohort median age was 72, 76% were men and 18% had liver metastasis. In both groups objective response rates were higher with carboplatin containing chemotherapy (45.6% first line, 44.2% second line) compared to PD-1/L1 inhibitors (9.3% first line, 21.3% second line). On multivariate analysis treatment sequence was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.05, p=0.85). Site of metastasis was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival (p=0.002).
In this biomarker unselected cohort of cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, PD-1/L1 inhibitor followed by carboplatin containing chemotherapy and the reverse sequence had comparable overall survival.
不适合接受含顺铂化疗的转移性尿路上皮癌患者的一线治疗选择包括 PD-1/L1 抑制剂和含卡铂化疗。然而,这些疗法的最佳序贯治疗仍不清楚。
我们进行了一项多中心回顾性分析。纳入了接受一线含卡铂化疗治疗的不适合接受顺铂治疗的转移性尿路上皮癌连续患者,然后序贯二线 PD-1/L1 抑制剂,或反之。收集了患者的人口统计学、客观反应、一线和二线治疗的无进展生存期、一线治疗结束与二线治疗开始之间的间隔(间隔)和总生存期。进行了多变量分析以检查测序对总生存期的影响。
在这项多中心回顾性研究中,我们确定了 146 例不适合接受顺铂治疗的转移性尿路上皮癌患者,他们接受了一线 PD-1/L1 抑制剂治疗,然后接受了二线含卡铂化疗(组 1,43 例)或相反的顺序(组 2,103 例)。在整个队列中,中位年龄为 72 岁,76%为男性,18%有肝转移。在两组中,含卡铂化疗的客观缓解率均高于 PD-1/L1 抑制剂(一线 45.6%,二线 44.2%)。在多变量分析中,治疗顺序与总生存期无关(HR 1.05,p=0.85)。转移部位是唯一与总生存期显著相关的因素(p=0.002)。
在这项未选择生物标志物的不适合接受顺铂治疗的转移性尿路上皮癌患者队列中,PD-1/L1 抑制剂后序贯含卡铂化疗和相反的顺序具有相似的总生存期。