M Sotelo1, T Alonso-Gordoa2, P Gajate2, E Gallardo3, R Morales-Barrera4, J L Pérez-Gracia5, J Puente6, P Sánchez7, D Castellano8, I Durán9,10. 1. Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, Edificio Sur. Despacho 277, Avda Valdecilla s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain. 2. Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 3. Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Institut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí I3PT, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain. 4. Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 5. University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 6. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain. 7. Medical Department, Roche Farma S.A., Madrid, Spain. 8. Doce de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 9. Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, Edificio Sur. Despacho 277, Avda Valdecilla s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain. ignacioduranmartinez@gmail.com. 10. Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla (IDIVAL), Santander, Spain. ignacioduranmartinez@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The studies IMvigor 210 cohort 2 and IMvigor211 evaluated the efficacy of atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) upon progression to platinum-based chemotherapy worldwide. Yet, the real impact of this drug in specific geographical regions is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined individual-level data from the 131 patients recruited in Spain from IMvigor210 cohort 2 and IMvigor211 in a pooled analysis. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the overall study population and according to PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. RESULTS: Full data were available for 127 patients; 74 (58%) received atezolizumab and 53 (42%) chemotherapy. Atezolizumab patients had a numerically superior median overall survival although not reaching statistical significance (9.2 months vs 7.7 months). No statistically significant differences between arms were observed in overall response rates (20.3% vs 37.0%) or progression-free survival (2.1 months vs 5.3 months). Nonetheless, median duration of response was superior for the immunotherapy arm (non-reached vs 6.4 months; p = 0.005). Additionally, among the responders, the 12-month survival rates seemed to favour atezolizumab (66.7% vs 19.9%). When efficacy was analyzed based on PD-L1 expression status, no significant differences were found. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred more frequently in the chemotherapy arm [46/57 (81%) vs 44/74 (59%)]. CONCLUSION: Patients who achieved an objective response on atezolizumab presented a longer median duration of response and numerically superior 12 month survival rates when compared with chemotherapy responders along with a more favorable safety profile. PD-L1 expression did not discriminate patients who might benefit from atezolizumab.
BACKGROUND: The studies IMvigor 210 cohort 2 and IMvigor211 evaluated the efficacy of atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) upon progression to platinum-based chemotherapy worldwide. Yet, the real impact of this drug in specific geographical regions is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined individual-level data from the 131 patients recruited in Spain from IMvigor210 cohort 2 and IMvigor211 in a pooled analysis. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the overall study population and according to PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. RESULTS: Full data were available for 127 patients; 74 (58%) received atezolizumab and 53 (42%) chemotherapy. Atezolizumabpatients had a numerically superior median overall survival although not reaching statistical significance (9.2 months vs 7.7 months). No statistically significant differences between arms were observed in overall response rates (20.3% vs 37.0%) or progression-free survival (2.1 months vs 5.3 months). Nonetheless, median duration of response was superior for the immunotherapy arm (non-reached vs 6.4 months; p = 0.005). Additionally, among the responders, the 12-month survival rates seemed to favour atezolizumab (66.7% vs 19.9%). When efficacy was analyzed based on PD-L1 expression status, no significant differences were found. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred more frequently in the chemotherapy arm [46/57 (81%) vs 44/74 (59%)]. CONCLUSION:Patients who achieved an objective response on atezolizumab presented a longer median duration of response and numerically superior 12 month survival rates when compared with chemotherapy responders along with a more favorable safety profile. PD-L1 expression did not discriminate patients who might benefit from atezolizumab.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atezolizumab; Duration of response; Metastatic urothelial cancer; Spain
Authors: Thomas W Flaig; Philippe E Spiess; Neeraj Agarwal; Rick Bangs; Stephen A Boorjian; Mark K Buyyounouski; Sam Chang; Tracy M Downs; Jason A Efstathiou; Terence Friedlander; Richard E Greenberg; Khurshid A Guru; Thomas Guzzo; Harry W Herr; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Christopher Hoimes; Brant A Inman; Masahito Jimbo; A Karim Kader; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Mark A Preston; Wade J Sexton; Arlene O Siefker-Radtke; Jonathan Tward; Jonathan L Wright; Lisa A Gurski; Alyse Johnson-Chilla Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: J Bellmunt; R Fougeray; J E Rosenberg; H von der Maase; F A Schutz; Y Salhi; S Culine; T K Choueiri Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-02-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Noah M Hahn; Jonathan Rosenberg; Guru Sonpavde; Thomas Hutson; William K Oh; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas Vogelzang; Cora N Sternberg; Dean F Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Jean-Charles Soria; Marcin Kowanetz; Gregg D Fine; Omid Hamid; Michael S Gordon; Jeffery A Sosman; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Scott N Gettinger; Holbrook E K Kohrt; Leora Horn; Donald P Lawrence; Sandra Rost; Maya Leabman; Yuanyuan Xiao; Ahmad Mokatrin; Hartmut Koeppen; Priti S Hegde; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Haidong Dong; Scott E Strome; Diva R Salomao; Hideto Tamura; Fumiya Hirano; Dallas B Flies; Patrick C Roche; Jun Lu; Gefeng Zhu; Koji Tamada; Vanda A Lennon; Esteban Celis; Lieping Chen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2002-06-24 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Arjun V Balar; Matthew D Galsky; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Thomas Powles; Daniel P Petrylak; Joaquim Bellmunt; Yohann Loriot; Andrea Necchi; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Nancy A Dawson; Michiel S van der Heijden; Robert Dreicer; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Richard W Joseph; Alexandra Drakaki; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Srikala S Sridhar; David I Quinn; Ignacio Durán; David R Shaffer; Bernhard J Eigl; Petros D Grivas; Evan Y Yu; Shi Li; Edward E Kadel; Zachary Boyd; Richard Bourgon; Priti S Hegde; Sanjeev Mariathasan; AnnChristine Thåström; Oyewale O Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Dean F Bajorin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A González Del Alba; G De Velasco; N Lainez; P Maroto; R Morales-Barrera; J Muñoz-Langa; B Pérez-Valderrama; L Basterretxea; C Caballero; S Vazquez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 3.405