Outcome of maintenance systemic chemotherapy with drug-free interval for metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Recent developments and future directions of first-line systemic therapy combined with immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a historical perspective on treatment evolution

Urothelial carcinoma presents significant treatment challenges, especially in advanced stages. Traditionally managed with platinum-based chemotherapy, the advent of immunotherapies, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized urothelial carcinoma treatment. This review explores the evolution of urothelial carcinoma management, focusing on the transition from immune checkpoint inhibitors monotherapy to innovative combination therapies. Pembrolizumab, following the KEYNOTE-045 trial, emerged as a pivotal ICI in pretreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma, outperforming traditional chemotherapy. However, limitations surfaced in untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients, particularly in those with low PD-L1 expression, as evidenced by trials like IMvigor130 and KEYNOTE-361. These challenges led to the exploration of combination therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates. Notably, the CheckMate 901 trial demonstrated improved outcomes with a nivolumab-chemotherapy combination. A significant breakthrough was achieved with the combination of enfortumab vedotin, an antibody-drug conjugates, and pembrolizumab, setting a new standard in first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Future directions involve further exploration of antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as seen in the TROPHY-U-01 and TROPiCS-4 trials. The review concludes that the locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, with combination therapies offering promising avenues for improved patient outcomes, signaling a new era in urothelial carcinoma management.

Anticancer maintenance chemotherapy prolonged prognosis of metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients: A single institute retrospective study using propensity score matching

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of anticancer maintenance chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of 74 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had been treated with or without anticancer maintenance chemotherapy between 2006 and 2020 at Osaka University Hospital. Progression-free survival and cancer-specific survival periods were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method starting from the end date of induction chemotherapy. The backgrounds of patients who had treated with or without anticancer maintenance chemotherapy were adjusted using the propensity score matching method.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients had undergone anticancer maintenance chemotherapy, whereas 45 patients had not. The median progression-free survival periods were 18.7 and 5.6 months (p = 0.0209), and the median cancer-specific survival periods were 25.1 and 15.2 months (p = 0.1299), in patients with or without anticancer maintenance chemotherapy respectively. In multivariate analysis, anticancer maintenance chemotherapy significantly prolonged both progression-free survival (hazard ratio 3.65, 95% confidence interval 1.96-6.78, p < 0.0001) and cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 3.05, 95% confidence interval 1.62-5.76, p = 0.0006) in patients with partial response or stable disease after induction chemotherapy. Also, anticancer maintenance chemotherapy significantly prolonged both progression-free survival (13.1 months vs. 4.9 months, p = 0.0027) and cancer-specific survival (35.1 months vs. 11.8 months, p = 0.0044) in propensity score matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticancer maintenance chemotherapy may be considered the treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients after induction chemotherapy.

Current status and future perspectives of immunotherapy against urothelial and kidney cancer

Much attention has been paid to immune checkpoint inhibitors to various cancer treatments. In urothelial cancer, pembrolizumab was initially approved for patients who either recurred or progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. For the platinum-fit population, although the standard first-line treatment is still platinum-based systemic chemotherapy, avelumab has been recently approved as a maintenance therapy for patients who have not had disease progression with four to six cycles of first-line chemotherapy. In addition, adjuvant nivolumab has just prolonged disease-free survival (DFS) by ~10 months, compared with placebo in patients with muscle-invasive bladder urothelial cancer or upper tract urothelial cancer at high-risk of recurrence after radical surgical resection. On the other hand, in kidney cancer, nivolumab was initially approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients after one or two prior anti-angiogenic therapies. Next, combinations of two immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab + ipilimumab) and immune checkpoint inhibitor + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (pembrolizumab + axitinib and avelumab + axitinib) were approved for the first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Recently, new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cabozantinib and lenvatinib have been combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Both nivolumab + cabozantinib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib have demonstrated superior progression-free survival and objective response rate, compared with sunitinib. So far, no prospective trials have demonstrated the duration of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatments. We are now doing the Japan Clinical Oncology Group 1905 trial, where patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received an immune checkpoint inhibitor for 24 weeks are divided into two groups: those who continue immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and those who discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Prognosis of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in the targeted therapy era

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to investigate prognosis and validate prognostic models [Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Data Consortium (IMDC), and Japanese metastatic renal cancer (JMRC) models] in the targeted therapy era in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 692 patients who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2008 to August 2018 in the Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group database. Nivolumab as sequential therapy was widely used. Other immune checkpoint inhibitors were excluded from this study.

RESULTS

The median overall survival (95% confident interval) in all, MSKCC favorable, intermediate, and poor risk patients was 41.0 months (33.9-46.8), not reached (63.5 to not estimable), 46.8 months (37.1-52.9), and 10.4 months (8.9-14.4), respectively. The median overall survival (95% confident interval) in IMDC favorable, intermediate, and poor risk patients was not reached (61.6 to not estimable), 47.4 months (41.4-56.5), and 11.5 (9.9-16.3), respectively. The c-index of the MSKCC, IMDC, and JMRC models calculated at mRCC diagnosis was 0.680, 0.689, and 0.700, respectively. No statistical differences were found in the c-index among the models.

CONCLUSION

While the real-world overall survival in Japanese patients with mRCC in the targeted therapy era improved compared to that previously reported in the cytokine era, there was no clear difference in the survival of poor risk patients between these eras. There were no differences in the superiority among the models.

Prognostic impact of local radiotherapy on metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients receiving systemic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the prognostic impact of local radiotherapy on metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients treated by systemic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Of the 228 metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients treated with systemic chemotherapy, 97 received radiotherapy mainly to metastatic sites. In patients for whom the purpose of radiotherapy was not specified, more than 50 Gy irradiation was considered to be for disease consolidation for survival analysis, while less than 50 Gy was categorized as palliation. According to the Kaplan-Meier method, we analysed overall survival from the initiation of treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma until death or the last follow-up, using the log-rank test to assess the significance of differences. The Cox model was applied for prognostic factor analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, there was no significant difference in survival between patients with and those without radiotherapy (P = 0.1532). When analysing the patients undergoing consolidative radiotherapy separately, these 25 patients showed significantly longer survival than the 72 patients with palliative radiotherapy (P = 0.0047), with a 3-year overall survival of 43.3%. Of the present cohort, 22 underwent metastasectomy for disease consolidation, and there was no overlapping case between the metastasectomy cohort and cohort receiving consolidative radiotherapy. After controlling for four independent prognostic factors (sex, performance status, haemoglobin level and number of organs with metastasis) in our previous study, radiotherapy for disease consolidation showed a marginal value (hazard ratio = 0.666, P = 0.0966), while metastasectomy remained significant (hazard ratio = 0.358, P = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

In the selected patients, long-term disease control could be achieved after consolidative radiotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma disease. Our observations suggest that local ablative therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) could facilitate long-term disease control. However, the treatment decision should be individualized because of the lack of randomized control trials.