1
|
Rebuzzi SE, Banna GL, Murianni V, Damassi A, Giunta EF, Fraggetta F, De Giorgi U, Cathomas R, Rescigno P, Brunelli M, Fornarini G. Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Review of the Current Evidence. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:5517. [PMID: 34771680 PMCID: PMC8583566 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13215517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2021] [Revised: 10/26/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, the treatment landscape of urothelial carcinoma has significantly changed due to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which are the standard of care for second-line treatment and first-line platinum-ineligible patients with advanced disease. Despite the overall survival improvement, only a minority of patients benefit from this immunotherapy. Therefore, there is an unmet need to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers or models to select patients who will benefit from ICIs, especially in view of novel therapeutic agents. This review describes the prognostic and predictive role, and clinical readiness, of clinical and tumour factors, including new molecular classes, tumour mutational burden, mutational signatures, circulating tumour DNA, programmed death-ligand 1, inflammatory indices and clinical characteristics for patients with urothelial cancer treated with ICIs. A classification of these factors according to the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation currently indicates both a prognostic and predictive value for ctDNA and a prognostic relevance only for concomitant medications and patients' characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Elena Rebuzzi
- Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Paolo, 17100 Savona, Italy
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (Di.M.I.), University of Genova, 16132 Genova, Italy
| | | | - Veronica Murianni
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genova, Italy; (V.M.); (G.F.)
| | - Alessandra Damassi
- Academic Unit of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genova, Italy;
| | - Emilio Francesco Giunta
- Department of Precision Medicine, Università Degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | | | - Ugo De Giorgi
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, 47014 Meldola, Italy;
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Division of Oncology/Hematology, Kantonsspital Graubünden, 7000 Chur, Switzerland;
| | - Pasquale Rescigno
- Interdisciplinary Group for Translational Research and Clinical Trials, Urogenital Cancers GIRT-Uro, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, 10060 Turin, Italy;
| | - Matteo Brunelli
- Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy;
| | - Giuseppe Fornarini
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genova, Italy; (V.M.); (G.F.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Martini DJ, Shabto JM, Goyal S, Liu Y, Olsen TA, Evans ST, Magod BL, Ravindranathan D, Brown JT, Yantorni L, Russler GA, Caulfield S, Goldman JM, Nazha B, Joshi SS, Kissick HT, Ogan KE, Harris WB, Kucuk O, Carthon BC, Master VA, Bilen MA. Body Composition as an Independent Predictive and Prognostic Biomarker in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Oncologist 2021; 26:1017-1025. [PMID: 34342095 DOI: 10.1002/onco.13922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). There are limited biomarkers for ICI-treated patients with UC. We investigated the association between body composition and clinical outcomes in ICI-treated UC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of 70 ICI-treated patients with advanced UC at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2020. Baseline computed tomography images within 2 months of ICI initiation were collected at mid-L3 and muscle and fat compartments (subcutaneous, intermuscular, and visceral) were segmented using SliceOMatic v5.0 (TomoVision, Magog, Canada). A prognostic body composition risk score (high: 0-1, intermediate: 2-3, or low-risk: 4) was created based on the β coefficient from the multivariate Cox model (MVA) following best-subset variable selection. Our body composition risk score was skeletal muscle index (SMI) + 2 × attenuated skeletal muscle (SM) mean + visceral fat index (VFI). Concordance statistics (C-statistics) were used to quantify the discriminatory magnitude of the predictive model. RESULTS Most patients (70%) were men and the majority received ICIs in the second- (46%) or third-line (21%) setting. High-risk patients had significantly shorter overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 6.72; p < .001), progression-free survival (HR, 5.82; p < .001), and lower chance of clinical benefit (odds ratio [OR], 0.02; p = .003) compared with the low-risk group in MVA. The C-statistics for our body composition risk group and myosteatosis analyses were higher than body mass index for all clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION Body composition variables such as SMI, SM mean, and VFI may be prognostic and predictive of clinical outcomes in ICI-treated patients with UC. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to validate this hypothesis-generating data. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE This study developed a prognostic body composition risk scoring system using radiographic biomarkers for patients with bladder cancer treated with immunotherapy. The study found that the high-risk patients had significantly worse clinical outcomes. Notably, the study's model was better at predicting outcomes than body mass index. Importantly, these results suggest that radiographic measures of body composition should be considered for inclusion in updated prognostic models for patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy. These findings are useful for practicing oncologists in the academic or community setting, particularly given that baseline imaging is routine for patients starting on treatment with immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dylan J Martini
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Julie M Shabto
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Subir Goyal
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - T Anders Olsen
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Sean T Evans
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Benjamin L Magod
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Deepak Ravindranathan
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jacqueline T Brown
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Lauren Yantorni
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | | | - Sarah Caulfield
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jamie M Goldman
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bassel Nazha
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | | | - Haydn T Kissick
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Kenneth E Ogan
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Wayne B Harris
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Omer Kucuk
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bradley C Carthon
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Viraj A Master
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mehmet Asim Bilen
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brown JT, Liu Y, Shabto JM, Martini D, Ravindranathan D, Hitron EE, Russler GA, Caulfield S, Yantorni L, Joshi SS, Kissick H, Ogan K, Nazha B, Carthon BC, Kucuk O, Harris WB, Master VA, Bilen MA. Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score associated with survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 9:jitc-2021-002851. [PMID: 34326170 PMCID: PMC8323383 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) is a composite biomarker that uses albumin and C reactive protein (CRP). There are multiple immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We investigated the ability of mGPS to predict outcomes in patients with mRCC receiving ICI. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed patients with mRCC treated with ICI as monotherapy or in combination at Winship Cancer Institute between 2015 and 2020. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the start date of ICI until death or clinical/radiographical progression, respectively. The baseline mGPS was defined as a summary score based on pre-ICI values with one point given for CRP>10 mg/L and/or albumin<3.5 g/dL, resulting in possible scores of 0, 1 and 2. If only albumin was low with a normal CRP, no points were awarded. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model. Outcomes were also assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS 156 patients were included with a median follow-up 24.2 months. The median age was 64 years and 78% had clear cell histology. Baseline mGPS was 0 in 36%, 1 in 40% and 2 in 24% of patients. In UVA, a baseline mGPS of 2 was associated with shorter OS (HR 4.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 8.24, p<0.001) and PFS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.01, p=0.006) relative to a score of 0; this disparity in outcome based on baseline mGPS persisted in MVA. The respective median OS of patients with baseline mGPS of 0, 1 and 2 was 44.5 (95% CI 27.3 to not evaluable), 15.3 (95% CI 11.0 to 24.2) and 10 (95% CI 4.6 to 17.5) months (p<0.0001). The median PFS of these three cohorts was 6.7 (95% CI 3.6 to 13.1), 4.2 (95% CI 2.9 to 6.2) and 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 5.6), respectively (p=0.0216). The discrimination power of baseline mGPS to predict survival outcomes was comparable to the IMDC risk score based on Uno's c-statistic (OS: 0.6312 vs 0.6102, PFS: 0.5752 vs 0.5533). CONCLUSION The mGPS is prognostic in this cohort of patients with mRCC treated with ICI as monotherapy or in combination. These results warrant external and prospective validation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline T Brown
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Julie M Shabto
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Dylan Martini
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Deepak Ravindranathan
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Emilie Elise Hitron
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Greta Anne Russler
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Sarah Caulfield
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Lauren Yantorni
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Shreyas Subhash Joshi
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Haydn Kissick
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Kenneth Ogan
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bassel Nazha
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bradley C Carthon
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Omer Kucuk
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Wayne B Harris
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Viraj A Master
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Mehmet Asim Bilen
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA .,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Prognostic factors in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have treated with Atezolizumab. Int J Clin Oncol 2021; 26:1506-1513. [PMID: 34023933 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-021-01936-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/08/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Atezolizumab (ATZ) has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in previous studies of patients with metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma. However, the response rate of Atezolizumab was modest. In the current study, we evaluated the pretreatment prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed after first-line chemotherapy in the Expanded-Access Program of Atezolizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this study, we present a retrospective analysis of 113 patients with urothelial cancer treated with ATZ after progression on first-line chemotherapy. Data of the patients was obtained from patient files and hospital records. Eligible patients included metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients treated with at least one course of ATZ. Univariate analysis was used to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact OS. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis if they had a statistical relationship with OS (p < 0.1), and then included a final model of p < 0.05. RESULTS The median follow-up duration was 23.5 months. Of the patients, 98 (86.7%) were male and 13.3% were female. The median age was 65 years of age (37-86). In univariate analysis, primary tumor location in the upper tract, increasing absolute neutrophil count (ANC), increasing absolute lymphocyte count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 3, liver metastases, baseline creatinine clearance less (GFR) than 60 ml/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (1 ≥), and hemoglobin levels below 10 mg/dl were all the significantly associated with OS. Three of the five adverse prognostic factors according to the Bellmunt criteria were independent of short survival: liver metastases HR 3.105; 95% CI 1.673-5.761; p < (0.001), ECOG PS (1 ≥) HR 2.184; 95% CI 1.120-4.256; p = 0.022, and Hemoglobin level below 10 mg/dl HR 2.680; 95% CI 1.558-4.608; p < (0.001). In addition, NLR > 3 hazard ratio [HR] 2.092; 95% CI 1.031-4.243; p = 0.041 and GFR less than 60 ml/min HR 1.829; 95% CI 1.1-3.041; p = 0.02, maintained a significant association with OS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS This model confirms the Bellmunt model with the addition of NLR > 3 and GFR less than 60 ml/min and can be associated with clinical trials that use immunotherapy in patients with bladder cancer.
Collapse
|
5
|
Rebuzzi SE, Signori A, Banna GL, Maruzzo M, De Giorgi U, Pedrazzoli P, Sbrana A, Zucali PA, Masini C, Naglieri E, Procopio G, Merler S, Tomasello L, Fratino L, Baldessari C, Ricotta R, Panni S, Mollica V, Sorarù M, Santoni M, Cortellini A, Prati V, Soto Parra HJ, Stellato M, Atzori F, Pignata S, Messina C, Messina M, Morelli F, Prati G, Nolè F, Vignani F, Cavo A, Roviello G, Pierantoni F, Casadei C, Bersanelli M, Chiellino S, Paolieri F, Perrino M, Brunelli M, Iacovelli R, Porta C, Buti S, Fornarini G. Inflammatory indices and clinical factors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab: the development of a novel prognostic score (Meet-URO 15 study). Ther Adv Med Oncol 2021; 13:17588359211019642. [PMID: 34046089 PMCID: PMC8135208 DOI: 10.1177/17588359211019642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 05/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Despite the survival advantage, not all metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients achieve a long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Moreover, the identification of prognostic biomarkers is still an unmet clinical need. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study investigated the prognostic role of peripheral-blood inflammatory indices and clinical factors to develop a novel prognostic score in mRCC patients receiving at least second-line nivolumab. The complete blood count before the first cycle of therapy was assessed by calculating neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived NLR (dNLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammation index (SII), and systemic inflammation response index (SIRI). Clinical factors included pre-treatment International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score, line of therapy, and metastatic sites. Results: From October 2015 to November 2019, 571 mRCC patients received nivolumab as second- and further-line treatment in 69% and 31% of cases. In univariable and multivariable analyses all inflammatory indices, IMDC score, and bone metastases significantly correlated with overall survival (OS). The multivariable model with NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had the highest c-index (0.697) and was chosen for the developing of the score (Schneeweiss scoring system). After internal validation (bootstrap re-sampling), the final index (Meet-URO score) composed by NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had a c-index of 0.691. It identified five categories with distinctive OSs: group 1 (median OS – mOS = not reached), group 2 (mOS = 43.9 months), group 3 (mOS = 22.4 months), group 4 (mOS = 10.3 months), and group 5 (mOS = 3.2 months). Moreover, the Meet-URO score allowed for a fine risk-stratification across all three IMDC groups. Conclusion: The Meet-URO score allowed for the accurate stratification of pretreated mRCC patients receiving nivolumab and is easily applicable for clinical practice at no additional cost. Future steps include its external validation, the assessment of its predictivity, and its application to first-line combinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Elena Rebuzzi
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, Genova, 16132, Italy
| | - Alessio Signori
- Department of Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Luigi Banna
- Department of Oncology, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy
| | - Marco Maruzzo
- Medical Oncology 1 Unit, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Ugo De Giorgi
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Italy
| | - Paolo Pedrazzoli
- Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
| | - Andrea Sbrana
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Paolo Andrea Zucali
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milano, Italy
| | - Cristina Masini
- Medical Oncology Unit, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Emanuele Naglieri
- Division of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Procopio
- SS Oncologia Medica Genitourinaria, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Sara Merler
- Department of Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, University of Verona,Verona, Italy
| | - Laura Tomasello
- Academic Unit of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Lucia Fratino
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano CRO-IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Cinzia Baldessari
- Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemathology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Riccardo Ricotta
- Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milano, Italy
| | - Stefano Panni
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST - Istituti Ospitalieri Cremona Hospital, Cremona, Italy
| | - Veronica Mollica
- Oncologia Medica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Maria Sorarù
- U.O. Oncologia, Ospedale di Camposampiero, Italy
| | | | - Alessio Cortellini
- Department of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | | | - Hector Josè Soto Parra
- Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology, University Hospital Policlinico-San Marco, Catania, Italy
| | - Marco Stellato
- Department of Medical Oncology, Università Campus Bio-Medico of Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Atzori
- Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Carlo Messina
- Medical Oncology Department, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy
| | - Marco Messina
- UOC Oncologia Medica, Istituto Fondazione G. Giglio, Cefalù, Italy
| | - Franco Morelli
- Medical Oncology Department, Casa Sollievo Della Sofferenza Hospital, IRCCS, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Prati
- Department of oncology and advanced technologies AUSL - IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Franco Nolè
- Medical Oncology Division of Urogenital & Head & Neck Tumors, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Francesca Vignani
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Torino, Italy
| | - Alessia Cavo
- Oncology Unit, Villa Scassi Hospital, Genova, Italy
| | - Giandomenico Roviello
- Department of Health Sciences, Section of Clinical Pharmacology and Oncology, University of Firenze, Firenze, Italy
| | - Francesco Pierantoni
- Medical Oncology 1 Unit, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Chiara Casadei
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Italy
| | | | - Silvia Chiellino
- Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
| | - Federico Paolieri
- Medical Oncology Unit 2, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Matteo Perrino
- Department of Oncology, IRCCS, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
| | - Matteo Brunelli
- Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Pathology Unit, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Roberto Iacovelli
- Medical Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Camillo Porta
- Chair of Oncology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari 'A. Moro', Bari, Italy
| | - Sebastiano Buti
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Fornarini
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino of Genova, Genova, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Fornarini G, Rebuzzi SE, Banna GL, Calabrò F, Scandurra G, De Giorgi U, Masini C, Baldessari C, Naglieri E, Caserta C, Manacorda S, Maruzzo M, Milella M, Buttigliero C, Tambaro R, Ermacora P, Morelli F, Nolè F, Astolfi C, Sternberg CN. Immune-inflammatory biomarkers as prognostic factors for immunotherapy in pretreated advanced urinary tract cancer patients: an analysis of the Italian SAUL cohort. ESMO Open 2021; 6:100118. [PMID: 33984678 PMCID: PMC8134706 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Revised: 03/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Reliable and affordable prognostic and predictive biomarkers for urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy may allow patients' outcome stratification and drive therapeutic options. The SAUL trial investigated the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in a real-world setting on 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed to one to three prior systemic therapies. Patients and methods Using the SAUL Italian cohort of 267 patients, we investigated the prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and the best performing one of these in combination with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with or without lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Previously reported cut-offs (NLR >3 and NLR >5; SII >1375) in addition to study-defined ones derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used. Results The cut-off values for NLR and SII by the ROC analysis were 3.65 (sensitivity 60.4; specificity 63.0) and 884 (sensitivity 64.4; specificity 67.5), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 months for NLR <3.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9-not reached (NR)] versus 6.0 months for NLR ≥3.65 (95% CI 3.9-9.4); 14.7 months for SII <884 (95% CI 10.6-NR) versus 6.0 months for SII ≥884 (95% CI 3.7-8.6). The combination of SII, PD-L1, and LDH stratified OS better than SII plus PD-L1 through better identification of patients with intermediate prognosis (77% versus 48%, respectively). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant correlations with OS and progression-free survival for both the SII + PD-L1 + LDH and SII + PD-L1 combinations. Conclusion The combination of immune-inflammatory biomarkers based on SII, PD-L1, with or without LDH is a potentially useful and easy-to-assess prognostic tool deserving validation to identify patients who may benefit from immunotherapy alone or alternative therapies. Reliable biomarkers for immunotherapy may assist in treatment decision making and clinical trial design and interpretation. Immune-inflammatory biomarkers were investigated for their prognostic role within the Italian SAUL study cohort. ROC-based cut-offs were 3.65 for NLR and 884 for SII. Both NLR and SII were prognostic with SII performing slightly better than NLR. The combination of SII, PD-L1, and LDH stratified OS better than SII + PD-L1; both were independent prognostic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Fornarini
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - S E Rebuzzi
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - G L Banna
- Department of Oncology, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK
| | - F Calabrò
- Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Camillo-Forlanini, Rome, Italy
| | - G Scandurra
- Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro di Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - U De Giorgi
- Medical Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) - IRCCS, Meldola, Italy
| | - C Masini
- Medical Oncology, AUSL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - C Baldessari
- Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria di Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - E Naglieri
- Division of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Tumori Bari Giovanni Paolo II - IRCCS, Bari, Italy
| | - C Caserta
- Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria, Terni, Italy
| | - S Manacorda
- Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - M Maruzzo
- Medical Oncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - M Milella
- Dipartimento di Oncologia, Policlinico Universitario G.B. Rossi Borgo Roma, Verona, Italy
| | - C Buttigliero
- Medical Oncology, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - R Tambaro
- U.O.C di Oncologia Sperimentale Uroginecologica, I.N.T. IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - P Ermacora
- Dipartimento di Oncologia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - F Morelli
- Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, S. Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy
| | - F Nolè
- IEO, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - C Astolfi
- Medical Affairs & Clinical Operation, Roche S.p.A., Monza, Italy
| | - C N Sternberg
- Hematology and Oncology, Englander Institute for Precision Medicine Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian, New York, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Martini DJ, Kline MR, Liu Y, Shabto JM, Carthon BC, Russler GA, Yantorni L, Hitron EE, Caulfield S, Goldman JM, Harris WB, Kucuk O, Master VA, Bilen MA. Novel risk scoring system for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with cabozantinib. Cancer Treat Res Commun 2021; 28:100393. [PMID: 34029879 PMCID: PMC8405548 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2021.100393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2021] [Revised: 04/23/2021] [Accepted: 05/02/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cabozantinib is an effective treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The international mRCC database consortium (IMDC) criteria is the gold standard for risk stratification in mRCC. We created a risk scoring system specific for mRCC patients treated with cabozantinib. METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of 87 patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2019. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were used to measure clinical outcomes. Upon variable selection in multivariable analysis (MVA), elevated baseline monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), sarcomatoid histologic component, ECOG PS > 1, and absence of bone metastases were each assigned 1 point. A three-group risk scoring system was then created: low (score=0-1), intermediate (score=2), and high risk (score=3-4). The Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival analyses. RESULTS The median age was 62 years-old and the majority were males (71%) with clear-cell RCC (75%). Most (67%) received at least 1 prior line of systemic therapy. High risk and intermediate risk pts had significantly shorter OS (high risk HR: 13.84, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 3.50, p = 0.004) and PFS (high risk HR: 7.31, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 1.87, p = 0.053) compared to low risk patients in MVA. CONCLUSIONS RCC patients treated with cabozantinib may benefit from specific risk stratification criteria using RCC histology, ECOG PS, sites of metastatic disease, and MLR. These variables are easily accessible in the clinical setting and may be helpful to determine which mRCC patients may benefit from treatment with cabozantinib.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dylan J Martini
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Meredith R Kline
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Julie M Shabto
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Bradley C Carthon
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | | | - Lauren Yantorni
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | | | - Sarah Caulfield
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Pharmacology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jamie M Goldman
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Wayne B Harris
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Omer Kucuk
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Viraj A Master
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mehmet Asim Bilen
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Inflammatory Markers in Cancer Immunotherapy. BIOLOGY 2021; 10:biology10040325. [PMID: 33924623 PMCID: PMC8069970 DOI: 10.3390/biology10040325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2021] [Revised: 04/01/2021] [Accepted: 04/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Simple Summary Inflammation has been recognized to be linked to tumor development. Several markers of inflammation can be detected via blood such as variety of blood cells, which can be readily and easily obtained. These markers have been studied as ways to predict and prognosticate tumor response to chemotherapy. With the development of immunotherapy, namely immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death ligand 1 (PDL-1) PDL-1 inhibitors, several markers have also been studied in assessing tumor response. In this review, we will discuss the various inflammatory markers that have been studied in several tumors treated with ICIs. Abstract Chronic inflammation is considered a major risk factor for cancer formation. Inflammation within
the tumor environment plays a role in its response to therapy, growth, and prognosis. Cancer associated inflammation is known to occur in the tumor microenvironment and in the systemic circulation, and is correlated with disease progression and prognosis in many cancers. Blood cells such as neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, and circulating proteins such as C-reactive protein, and interleukins, such as IL-6, have been associated with inflammatory responses, which contribute to tumorigenesis. Cancer has found ways to evade the immune response; a pathway that can attenuate the innate immune response is via blocking immune checkpoints. Development of monoclonal antibodies against inhibitory immune checkpoints such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) have given rise to immunotherapy, which has shown remarkable responses in anti-tumor activity resulting in several U.S. Federal and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved checkpoint inhibitors. Various inflammatory markers and their prognostic and predictive implications in malignancies treated with immunotherapy will be discussed in this review.
Collapse
|
9
|
Brown JT, Liu Y, Shabto JM, Martini DJ, Ravindranathan D, Hitron EE, Russler GA, Caulfield S, Yantorni LB, Joshi SS, Kissick H, Ogan K, Harris WB, Carthon BC, Kucuk O, Master VA, Bilen MA. Baseline Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score Associated with Survival in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Oncologist 2021; 26:397-405. [PMID: 33634507 DOI: 10.1002/onco.13727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), a clinical tool that incorporates albumin and C-reactive protein, has proven useful in the prognostication of multiple cancers. Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC), but a prognostic biomarker is needed. We investigated the impact of mGPS on survival outcomes in patients with mUC receiving ICIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed patients with mUC treated with ICIs (programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors) at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2018. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the start date of ICI until death or clinical or radiographic progression, respectively. mGPS was defined as a summary score with one point given for C-reactive protein >10 mg/L and/or albumin <3.5 g/dL. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) analyses were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model. These outcomes were also assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS A total of 53 patients were included with a median follow-up 27.1 months. The median age was 70 years, with 84.9% male and 20.8% Black. Baseline mGPS was 0 in 43.4%, 1 in 28.3% and 2 in 28.3%. Increased mGPS at the time of ICI initiation was associated with poorer OS and PFS in UVA, MVA, and Kaplan-Meier analyses. CONCLUSION The mGPS may be a useful prognostic tool in patients with mUC when treatment with ICI is under consideration. These results warrant a larger study for validation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The ideal prognostic tool for use in a busy clinical practice is easy-to-use, cost-effective, and capable of accurately predicting clinical outcomes. There is currently no universally accepted risk score in metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC), particularly in the immunotherapy era. The modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) incorporates albumin and C-reactive protein and may reflect underlying chronic inflammation, a known risk factor for resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study found that baseline mGPS is associated with survival outcomes in patients with mUC treated with ICIs and may help clinicians to prognosticate for their patients beginning immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline T Brown
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Julie M Shabto
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Dylan J Martini
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Deepak Ravindranathan
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Emilie Elise Hitron
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Greta Anne Russler
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Sarah Caulfield
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Department of Pharmacology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Lauren Beth Yantorni
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Shreyas S Joshi
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Haydn Kissick
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Kenneth Ogan
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Wayne B Harris
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bradley C Carthon
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Omer Kucuk
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Viraj A Master
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Mehmet Asim Bilen
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ravindranathan D, Alhalabi O, Rafei H, Shah AY, Bilen MA. Landscape of Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancies. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 2021; 1342:143-192. [PMID: 34972965 PMCID: PMC11235092 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-79308-1_5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed a revolution in the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of multiple tumor types, including genitourinary cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have notably improved the treatment outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In prostate cancer, the role of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is not yet established except for microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) tumors. Other immunotherapeutic approaches that have been explored in these malignancies include cytokines, vaccines, and cellular therapy. Ongoing studies are exploring the use of immunotherapy combinations as well as combination with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in these types of tumors. The use of immunotherapy beyond the metastatic setting is an active area of research. Moreover, there is great interest in biomarker development to predict response to immunotherapy and risk of toxicity. This book chapter is a comprehensive review of immunotherapeutic approaches, both approved and investigational, for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deepak Ravindranathan
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Omar Alhalabi
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hind Rafei
- Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amishi Yogesh Shah
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Mehmet Asim Bilen
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Brenneman RJ, Gay HA, Christodouleas JP, Sargos P, Arora V, Fischer-Valuck B, Huang J, Knoche E, Pachynski R, Picus J, Reimers M, Roth B, Michalski JM, Baumann BC. Review: Brain Metastases in Bladder Cancer. Bladder Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.3233/blc-200304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Nearly 50% of bladder cancer patients either present with metastatic disease or relapse distantly following initial local therapy. Prior to platinum-based chemotherapy, the incidence of bladder cancer central nervous system metastases was approximately 1%; however, their incidence has increased to 3–16% following definitive treatment as platinum-based regimens have changed the natural history of the disease. Bladder cancer brain metastases are generally managed similarly to those from more common malignancies such as non-small cell lung cancer, with surgery +/–adjuvant radiotherapy, or radiotherapy alone using stereotactic radiosurgery or whole brain radiotherapy. Limited data suggest that patients with inoperable urothelial carcinoma brain metastases who are not candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery may benefit from shorter whole brain radiation therapy courses compared to other histologies, but data is hypothesis-generating. Given improvements in the efficacy of systemic therapy and supportive care strategies for metastatic urothelial carcinoma translating in improved survival, the incidence of intracranial failures may increase. Immune checkpoint blockade therapy may benefit cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients as first-line therapy; however, the effectiveness of immune checkpoint blockade to treat central nervous system disease has not been established. In this review, we discuss the incidence and management of bladder cancer brain metastases and considerations regarding variations in management relative to more commonly encountered non-urothelial histologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randall J. Brenneman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Hiram A. Gay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - John P. Christodouleas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Vivek Arora
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | | | - Jiayi Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Eric Knoche
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Russell Pachynski
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Joel Picus
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Melissa Reimers
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Bruce Roth
- Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Brian C. Baumann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Shabto JM, Martini DJ, Liu Y, Ravindranathan D, Brown J, Hitron EE, Russler GA, Caulfield S, Kissick H, Alemozaffar M, Ogan K, Harris WB, Master VA, Kucuk O, Carthon BC, Bilen MA. Novel risk group stratification for metastatic urothelial cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Med 2020; 9:2752-2760. [PMID: 32100417 PMCID: PMC7163104 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Revised: 02/01/2020] [Accepted: 02/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We developed a novel risk scoring system for urothelial cancer (UC) patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of 67 UC patients treated with ICI at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from 2015 to 2018. Using stepwise variable selection in Cox proportional hazard model and Sullivan's weighting schema, baseline platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), presence of liver metastasis, baseline albumin, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were used for risk scoring. Patients were categorized into good risk (risk score 0-1), intermediate risk (risk score 2-3), and poor risk (risk score 4-6). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA) and Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS The Emory Risk Scoring System had C-statistics of 0.74 (Standard Error = 0.047) in predicting OS and 0.70 (Standard Error = 0.043) in predicting PFS. Compared to good risk patients, poor risk patients had significantly shorter OS and PFS in both UVA and MVA (all P < .001), and intermediate risk patients had significantly shorter OS and PFS in both UVA and MVA (all P < .03). CONCLUSIONS Risk scoring using baseline PLR, presence of liver metastasis, baseline albumin, and baseline ECOG PS may effectively predict OS and PFS in UC patients receiving ICI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie M Shabto
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Dylan J Martini
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Yuan Liu
- Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Deepak Ravindranathan
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jacqueline Brown
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Emilie E Hitron
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Greta A Russler
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Sarah Caulfield
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Haydn Kissick
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mehrdad Alemozaffar
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Kenneth Ogan
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Wayne B Harris
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Viraj A Master
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Omer Kucuk
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Bradley C Carthon
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mehmet A Bilen
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|