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

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of clinical oncology 2022, Vol.27 (1), p.165-174
Hauptverfasser: Isobe, Teruki, Naiki, Taku, Sugiyama, Yosuke, Naiki-Ito, Aya, Nagai, Takashi, Etani, Toshiki, Nozaki, Satoshi, Iida, Keitaro, Noda, Yusuke, Shimizu, Nobuhiko, Tomiyama, Nami, Banno, Rika, Kubota, Hiroki, Hamamoto, Shuzo, Ando, Ryosuke, Kawai, Noriyasu, Yasui, Takahiro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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  
ISSN:1341-9625
1437-7772
DOI:10.1007/s10147-021-02046-z