Benjamin Miron1, Elizabeth Handorf2, Kevin Zarrabi1, Matthew R Zibelman1, Fern Anari1, Pooja Ghatalia1, Elizabeth R Plimack1, Daniel M Geynisman3. 1. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Biostatistics & Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Daniel.Geynisman@fccc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has changed significantly since studies establishing superiority of cisplatin as first-line therapy were conducted. Most patients who are eligible now receive either maintenance or second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and data comparing first-line platinum chemotherapy agents in this setting is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of first-line platinum chemotherapy agent on survival for patients who receive second-line ICI. This is a retrospective cohort study of real-world data, performed from January 1, 2015, to March 21, 2021, included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma. Exposure of interest was first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy (gemcitabine and/or cisplatin or gemcitabine and/or carboplatin) followed by single-agent second-line ICI. The primary endpoint was overall survival from start of second-line therapy. RESULTS: 2,042 patients received either gemcitabine and cisplatin (gem/cis) or gemcitabine and carboplatin (gem/carbo) as first-line therapy. The primary analysis of 890 patients who received second-line single-agent ICI had a median follow-up was 24.2 months from initiation of second-line therapy. Important differences in baseline demographics and/or clinical factors between groups were age, performance status, incidence of upper tract disease, and cisplatin eligibility. Unadjusted overall survival (OS) calculated from start of second-line therapy was longer in patients who received gem/cis compared to gem/carbo followed by ICI (median 9.3 vs. 8.8 months, P = 0.0009). However, OS adjusted for covariates was not significantly different with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.50). A separate time-varying covariate model also showed no association between OS and first-line gem/cis (HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.84-1.19]) while receiving second-line ICI. CONCLUSIONS: Survival time on ICI in the second-line setting is the same regardless of choice of prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) suggesting against specific synergy for one of these agents with ICI. However, a significantly greater proportion of patients in a landmark analysis had long-term benefit with cisplatin strongly supporting it is as the preferred first-line platinum agent.
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has changed significantly since studies establishing superiority of cisplatin as first-line therapy were conducted. Most patients who are eligible now receive either maintenance or second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and data comparing first-line platinum chemotherapy agents in this setting is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of first-line platinum chemotherapy agent on survival for patients who receive second-line ICI. This is a retrospective cohort study of real-world data, performed from January 1, 2015, to March 21, 2021, included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma. Exposure of interest was first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy (gemcitabine and/or cisplatin or gemcitabine and/or carboplatin) followed by single-agent second-line ICI. The primary endpoint was overall survival from start of second-line therapy. RESULTS: 2,042 patients received either gemcitabine and cisplatin (gem/cis) or gemcitabine and carboplatin (gem/carbo) as first-line therapy. The primary analysis of 890 patients who received second-line single-agent ICI had a median follow-up was 24.2 months from initiation of second-line therapy. Important differences in baseline demographics and/or clinical factors between groups were age, performance status, incidence of upper tract disease, and cisplatin eligibility. Unadjusted overall survival (OS) calculated from start of second-line therapy was longer in patients who received gem/cis compared to gem/carbo followed by ICI (median 9.3 vs. 8.8 months, P = 0.0009). However, OS adjusted for covariates was not significantly different with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.50). A separate time-varying covariate model also showed no association between OS and first-line gem/cis (HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.84-1.19]) while receiving second-line ICI. CONCLUSIONS: Survival time on ICI in the second-line setting is the same regardless of choice of prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) suggesting against specific synergy for one of these agents with ICI. However, a significantly greater proportion of patients in a landmark analysis had long-term benefit with cisplatin strongly supporting it is as the preferred first-line platinum agent.
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Alexia Iasonos; Svetlana Mironov; Joseph Scattergood; Mary G Boyle; Dean F Bajorin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aristotle Bamias; Lia A Moulopoulos; Aggelos Koutras; Gerassimos Aravantinos; George Fountzilas; Dimitris Pectasides; Efstathios Kastritis; Dimitros Gika; Dimosthenis Skarlos; Helena Linardou; Haralambos P Kalofonos; Meletios A Dimopoulos Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Che-Kai Tsao; Erin Moshier; Sonia M Seng; James Godbold; Steven Grossman; Jonathan Winston; William K Oh; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Hans von der Maase; Lisa Sengelov; James T Roberts; Sergio Ricci; Luigi Dogliotti; T Oliver; Malcolm J Moore; Annamaria Zimmermann; Michael Arning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert Dreicer; Judith Manola; Bruce J Roth; William A See; Steven Kuross; Martin J Edelman; Gary R Hudes; George Wilding Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melissa D Curtis; Sandra D Griffith; Melisa Tucker; Michael D Taylor; William B Capra; Gillis Carrigan; Ben Holzman; Aracelis Z Torres; Paul You; Brandon Arnieri; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 3.402