Third-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study

Real-world treatment patterns and quality of life among patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma living in Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Asia.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi Real World Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of medical oncologists/urologists and their adult patients in Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. Exploratory patient-reported outcomes included the EQ-5D visual analog scale, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of Patient Questionnaire global health, and Brief Pain Inventory. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Overall, 175 physicians reported data for 988 patients. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 66.3 (10.8) years, 77% were men, and 82% had bladder tumors at diagnosis. Of patients receiving first- (n = 988), second- (n = 290), and third-line (n = 87) treatments, 81%, 35%, and 59% received chemotherapy, respectively, and 17%, 63%, and 34% received programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 inhibitors, respectively. Patient-reported (n = 319) mean (standard deviation) EQ-5D visual analog scale score was 51.8 (15.6), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of Patient Questionnaire global health status score was 44.6 (19.9), and Brief Pain Inventory score was 6.5 (1.9; n = 315).

CONCLUSION

The most common first- and second-line treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1/ligand inhibitors, respectively. At third line, 10% of patients received best supportive care alone, underscoring an unmet need for effective third-line treatment options. Patients in all regions reported quality-of-life impairment.

Oncological Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma after Discontinuing Pembrolizumab as a Second-Line Treatment: A Retrospective Multicenter Real-World Cohort Study

The treatment options are currently limited, and the oncological outcomes remain unclear, for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) with or without third-line systemic therapy. We aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes in real-world daily clinical practice after platinum-based chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab for mUC. This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included patients with mUC who received second-line pembrolizumab in Japan. The patients were divided into the treatment group (those who received third-line treatment) and the BSC group (those who did not receive other treatments). The primary endpoint of this study was to evaluate the oncological outcomes. Of 126 patients enrolled in this study, 40 received third-line therapy. The median follow-up period was 8.0 months. The median overall survival (OS) times were nine months in the BSC group and 17 months in the treatment group (p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (PFS) times were 4 months in the BSC group and 14 months in the treatment group (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, performance status and liver metastasis were significantly associated with OS. Third-line therapy may have clinical potential advantages for improving the oncological outcomes in patients with mUC.

Identifying Valid Algorithms for Number of Lines of Anti-Neoplastic Therapy in the Danish National Patient Registry Among Patients with Advanced Ovarian, Gastric, Renal Cell, Urothelial, and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Attending a Danish University Hospital

Purpose

To develop algorithms to identify number of lines of anti-neoplastic therapy per patient based on the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) and identify which algorithm has the highest percentage agreement with a reference standard of documentation in medical records.

Patients and Methods

We included 179 patients diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, with stage II, III, or IV urothelial cell carcinoma or stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, gastric adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We developed two algorithms for number of lines of anti-neoplastic therapy based on dates and treatment codes (eg, “treatment with cisplatin” or “cytostatic treatment”) in the DNPR. First, to denote a change in line of therapy the “Time-based algorithm” used the number of days between consecutive administrations. Second, the “Drug-based algorithm” used information on drug names if available or the number of days between consecutive administrations if no drug names were specified. We calculated the percentage agreement between the algorithms setting the number of allowed days between consecutive administrations from 28 to 50 and the reference standard – information on anti-neoplastic therapy drugs abstracted from medical records and subsequently coded according to lines of anti-neoplastic therapy.

Results

For the “Time-based algorithm”, the highest percentage agreement with the reference standard was found when using <45 days between consecutive administrations (67.6%; 95% CI: 60.1–73.8%). However, the percentage agreement was higher for the “Drug-based algorithm” using <45 days between consecutive administrations for registrations where the drug name was unspecified (90.5%; 95% CI: 85.0–93.7%).

Conclusion

The algorithm for number of lines of anti-neoplastic therapy that had the highest percentage agreement with the reference standard (medical records) incorporated both registration of specific drug names and <45 days between consecutive administrations if the drug name was unspecified in routinely recorded data from DNPR.

TROPHY-U-01: A Phase II Open-Label Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE

Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress on platinum-based combination chemotherapy (PLT) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have limited options that offer objective response rates (ORRs) of approximately 10% with a median overall survival (OS) of 7-8 months. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a TROP-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload that has shown preliminary activity in mUC.

METHODS

TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II, registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with locally advanced or unresectable or mUC who had progressed after prior PLT and CPI. Patients received SG 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary outcome was centrally reviewed ORR; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, OS, duration of response, and safety.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 included 113 patients (78% men; median age, 66 years; 66.4% visceral metastases; median of three [range, 1-8] prior therapies). At a median follow-up of 9.1 months, the ORR was 27% (31 of 113; 95% CI, 19.5 to 36.6); 77% had decrease in measurable disease. Median duration of response was 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.6 months), with median progression-free survival and OS of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 7.2 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 13.8 months), respectively. Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (35%), leukopenia (18%), anemia (14%), diarrhea (10%), and febrile neutropenia (10%), with 6% discontinuing treatment because of treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

SG is an active drug with a manageable safety profile with most common toxicities of neutropenia and diarrhea. SG has notable efficacy compared with historical controls in pretreated mUC that has progressed on both prior PLT regimens and CPI. The results from this study supported accelerated approval of SG in this population.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Progression to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Retrospective Analysis by the Meet-Uro Group (Meet-URO 1 Study)

Background:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently the standard of care for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after the failure of previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The choice of further therapy after ICI progression is a new challenge, and scarce data support it. We aimed to examine the outcomes of mUC patients after progression to ICI, especially when receiving chemotherapy.

Methods:

Data were retrospectively collected from clinical records of mUC patients whose disease progressed to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy at 14 Italian centers. Patients were grouped according to ICI therapy setting into SALVAGE (ie, ICI delivered ⩾ second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy) and NAÏVE (ie, first-line therapy) groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among subgroups. Cox regression assessed the effect of treatments after progression to ICI on OS. Objective response rate (ORR) was calculated as the sum of partial and complete radiologic responses.

Results:

The study population consisted of 201 mUC patients who progressed after ICI: 59 in the NAÏVE cohort and 142 in the SALVAGE cohort. Overall, 52 patients received chemotherapy after ICI progression (25.9%), 20 (9.9%) received ICI beyond progression, 115 (57.2%) received best supportive care only, and 14 (7.0%) received investigational drugs. Objective response rate to chemotherapy in the post-ICI setting was 23.1% (28.0% in the NAÏVE group and 18.5% in the SALVAGE group). Median PFS and OS to chemotherapy after ICI-PD was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3-11) and 13 months (95% CI: 7-NA) for the NAÏVE group; 3 months (95% CI: 2-NA) and 9 months (95% CI: 6-NA) for the SALVAGE group, respectively. Overall survival from ICI initiation was 17 months for patients receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.09, p < 0.001), versus 8 months for patients receiving ICI beyond progression (HR = 0.13, p < 0.001), and 2 months for patients who did not receive further active treatment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Chemotherapy administered after ICI progression for mUC patients is advisable irrespective of the treatment line.

Current Systemic Treatment Options in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma after Progression on Checkpoint Inhibition Therapy-A Systemic Review Combined with Single-Group Meta-Analysis of Three Studies Testing Enfortumab Vedotin

BACKGROUND

In the first and second-line therapy of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) such as Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab have been widely implemented. Little is currently known about what therapeutic options are effective after therapy with CPI. This article presents a systemic review of current treatment options in this setting.

METHODS

From August 2020 to 15 April 2021, a literature search was performed through the PubMed/Medline. Subsequently, a single-group meta-analysis of three studies testing Enfortumab vedotin (EV) was conducted.

RESULTS

Five therapy regimens tested in the post-CPI setting with adequate data were identified: Chemotherapy (CT), Ramucirumab plus Docetaxel, Erdafitinib (Erd), EV, and Sacituzumab govitecan (SG). In n = 74 + 125 + 288 patients, the single-group meta-analysis showed an objective response rate of 42.1% for EV compared to 17.9% for CT in a similar setting. EV was also ahead in progression free survival (5.9 months with EV vs. 3.7 months with CT) and overall survival (12.8 months with EV vs. 9.0 months with CT).

CONCLUSION

Most data are currently available for EV. Further research is needed on the question of which patients' subcollectives particularly benefit from which therapeutic approach.

Effect of Treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors on Key Health Outcomes of Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that treatment with the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor class could significantly improve survival outcomes in several oncology indications. However, there is some clinical uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to obtain high-level estimates of the impact of treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor class to oncology treatment on key health outcomes in real-world situations and to inform public health policy decisions about cancer care after reducing uncertainties around new immuno-oncology therapy options in South Korea.

METHODS

A model was developed to estimate the impact of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors on outcomes in situations wherein both anti-PD-1/PD-L1s and standard of care (SOC) were available versus SOC only. A partitioned survival model was utilized to estimate the impact of introducing anti-PD-1/PD-L1s on outcomes, including life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, progression-free survival-years obtained, and grade 3 or higher adverse events avoided for six indications over 5 years. An exponential distribution was fitted to the survival function of the SOC based on visual inspection. Outcomes associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1s were estimated using a piecewise modeling approach with Kaplan-Meier analysis followed by best-fitting survival analysis. The incident number of patients and market share of anti-PD-1/PD-L1s during 2020-2024 were projected using published literature and Korean market survey data. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainty of input parameters.

RESULTS

During the next 5-year period (2020-2024), introducing the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 class led to a gain of 22,001 life-years (+ 31%), 19,073 quality-adjusted life-years (+ 38%), and 22,893 progression-free survival-years (+ 82%); it also avoided 3610 adverse events (- 11%) compared with SOC alone. Most adverse events associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1s were attributed to combination therapy with cytotoxic chemotherapy (91%). In a scenario wherein the time to reimbursement of the anti-PD-1/PD-L1s was accelerated by 1 year, the life-years gained increased by 14% compared with the base-case scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy is expected to provide marked survival benefits for patients with cancer. This study demonstrated the potentially beneficial health impacts of utilizing the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 class at the population level. The findings could inform health policy decision makers about cancer care and ultimately enhance population health through rapid access to innovative cancer drugs.

Vinflunine in the treatment of relapsed metastatic urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world series

BACKGROUND

Vinflunine (VFL) is approved in Europe as second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer after failure of platinum-containing therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world data (RWD) to assess utilization, efficacy and safety of VFL.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search for the period of 1/1/2000-31/8/2017. Full-length articles providing post-marketing RWD on VFL in patients failing previous chemotherapy were eligible. Interventional clinical trials were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 797 patients were identified. According to pooled REs analysis, overall response rate was 19%, most frequent, all-grade toxicities were fatigue (41%), constipation (39%), nausea/vomiting (25%), and most prevalent Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (13%), anaemia (9%), fatigue (8%). Median OS was comparable to results reported in recent randomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the efficacy and safety of VFL in an unselected population and support the use of VFL in the changing treatment paradigm of relapsed mUC.

Primary urothelial carcinoma of the prostate: A rare case report

RATIONALE

Prostatic urothelial carcinoma is a rare disease. Medical misdiagnosis rates remain high because there are no specific clinical symptoms or imaging features, which decreases patient survival. We report a case of prostatic urethral cancer confirmed by transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy because of an abnormal digital rectal exam.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 55-year-old man was referred to our hospital due to lower urinary tract symptoms that lasted for 5 years.

DIAGNOSES AND INTERVENTIONS

On digital rectal examination, a hard and enlarged prostate was detected. Computed tomography, bone scintigraphy, and magnetic resonance imaging indicated benign prostatic hyperplasia. The patient underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. From the histopathological examination and immunohistochemical markers, a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic urothelial carcinoma was made. We excluded the possibility of urothelial cancer originating in the bladder lining after transurethral resection of the bladder. Radical cystoprostatectomy was performed, followed by 6 cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy. Postoperative pathology showed primary urothelial carcinoma of the prostate.

OUTCOMES

The patient recovered smoothly after surgery. After a 6-month follow-up, no evidence of local recurrence or metastatic disease was found.

LESSONS

This case reminds clinicians that, for middle-aged men with suspicious digital rectal examinations, a diagnosis of prostatic urothelial carcinoma should be considered. Initial radical surgery followed by combination chemotherapy is suggested for therapeutic management.

Safety of Vinflunine in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Refractory to Platinum-based Chemotherapy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Several single chemotherapeutic agents have been evaluated as the second-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Despite encouraging efficacy outcomes, toxicity has often led to dose modifications or discontinuation. We aimed to assess the safety of vinflunine in a particular population of advanced transitional cell carcinoma of urothelium (TCCU), that were exposed to the previous toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is an open-label, prospective, single-center pilot study to evaluate the response rate and safety profile of vinflunine in patients with advanced TCCU. It was planned to enroll 25 evaluable patients. Eligible patients are those with progressive disease after first-line platinum-based regimen for advanced or metastatic disease.

RESULTS

The study was prematurely closed due to two sudden deaths that were judged by the review board as treatment-related. Only ten patients were evaluated and received at least one cycle of vinflunine. All but one were male and seven underwent radical surgery. Eight had a distant metastasis (mainly lung and/or liver). Disease control rate was 40%, four patients had a partial response with median duration of response of 3.5 months. The median overall survival was 3.2 months (95% CI:1.67- 4.73). There were three serious adverse events namely two sudden deaths and one grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Nine grade 3/4 adverse events occurred. The most common all-grade adverse events were fatigue (50%), constipation (40%) and vomiting (40%). Moreover, grade 3 fatigue occurred in 30% of patients. Only one patient, who achieved PR for 5 months, was fit to receive further cytotoxic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The activity of vinflunine in advanced urothelial carcinoma came at the expense of its safety. The use of vinflunine has to be limited to the selected group of patients. However, this is a single institute experience in a limited number of patients.

Vinflunine for the treatment of advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Background

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of systemic vinflunine (VIN) in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma (UC) was performed to evaluate its efficacy based on current available clinical data.

Methods

This review was prospectively registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (registration CRD42016049294). Electronic databases including MEDLINE^®, Embase^®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched through December 2016. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Numerous secondary clinical outcomes were analyzed including response and toxicity data.

Results

We identified 382 publications, of which 35 met inclusion criteria for this review representing 29 unique studies. A total of 2,255 patients received VIN for the treatment of UC in the included studies. OS and PFS were analyzed in a pooled Kaplan–Meier analysis. Response data were available for 1,416 VIN-treated patients with random effects proportion of complete response in 1%, partial response in 18%, and overall response rate of 21%. Toxicity analysis revealed fatigue (40.1%), nausea (33.9%), constipation (34.1%), and alopecia (26.0%) as the most prevalent overall non-hematologic adverse events (AEs). Most prevalent grade 3–4 AEs were fatigue (10.2%), abdominal pain (8.2%), myalgias (2.5%), and nausea (2.3%). Most common hematologic AEs of all grades were anemia (56.6%), neutropenia (46.0%), thrombocytopenia (25.5%), and febrile neutropenia (6.6%). Grade 3–4 hematologic AEs had the following pooled rates: neutropenia, 24.6%; anemia, 10.2%; febrile neutropenia, 5.4%; and thrombocytopenia, 3.0%.

Conclusion

VIN has been explored as a combination first-line treatment as well as a single-agent second-line, third-line, and maintenance therapy for advanced and metastatic UC. In first-line treatment of UC, either as a maintenance agent after cisplatin or as a primary combination therapy, VIN may be a promising alternative to current treatments. Further studies are needed to compare first-line combination VIN regimens to the current standard of care in order to assess long-term survival outcomes. Second- and third-line VIN monotherapy does provide a proven, although limited, survival benefit in platinum-refractory patients.

Falling under the umbrella cells: A single institutional experience and literature review of urothelial carcinoma presenting as a primary pancreatic mass on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

Metastases to the pancreas are much less common than primary pancreatic lesions, and there are few reports in the literature of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) found in the pancreas. We report two cases of metastatic UC mimicking a primary pancreatic lesion. Two female patients, aged 48 and 83 years, presented with isolated pancreatic lesions causing obstructive jaundice suspicious for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). On cytopathology, the lesions were found to be UC, confirmed with immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. UC rarely metastasizes to the pancreas, and diagnosis through EUS-FNA can be challenging. However, the utilization of ROSE, dedicated cell block passes, and IHC have proved to be effective in obtaining this unusual pancreatic diagnosis by EUS-FNA.

Difference in toxicity reporting between patients and clinicians during systemic chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To compare toxicity reporting between patients and clinicians in the case of systemic chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

Between June 2013 and March 2016, 100 urothelial carcinoma patients received two courses of chemotherapy of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, and they were prospectively enrolled in the present study. During chemotherapy, patients answered European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30 quality-of-life questionnaires, including four toxicity-related symptoms (appetite loss, nausea, constipation and diarrhea). Clinicians evaluated adverse events using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Differences of toxicity reporting were compared between patients and clinicians. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to investigate potential factors for underreporting by clinicians.

RESULTS

Toxicity underreporting was most frequently for diarrhea (44%), followed by appetite loss (39%), constipation (33%) and nausea (22%). In total, toxicity underreporting was observed in 72% of patients. Background-adjusted logistic regression analyses showed pretreatment quality-of-life items of global, symptomatic scores to be predictors for toxicity underreporting by clinicians. The limitations of the present study included its retrospective nature and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Toxicity underreporting by clinicians is frequent in urothelial carcinoma patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Pretreatment quality-of-life evaluation is essential not only for quality-of-life evaluation, but also to identify potential individuals at risk for toxicity underreporting.

Quality-of-life evaluation during platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapies for urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although quality of life (QOL) is one of the most important considerations in patients treated with anticancer therapies, desirable regimens for neoadjuvant chemotherapy including QOL in locally advanced urothelial carcinoma remain unclear. The present study evaluated the influence of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy on QOL in patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

Between June 2013 and March 2016, 83 urothelial carcinoma patients who received two courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Neoadjuvant regimens included gemcitabine + cisplatin (GCis) or gemcitabine + carboplatin (GCb) therapies. As a primary endpoint, we assessed QOL changes in each group before and after chemotherapy using the Quality of Life questionnaire on days 1, 3, and 15 of each cycle. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, safety, weight loss, renal function decline, and tumor responses.

RESULTS

QOL analyses were performed in 39 patients receiving GCis and in 44 patients receiving GCb. Appetite loss, role functioning, nausea/vomiting, physical, and fatigue deteriorated >10% from baseline in the GCis group but not in the GCb group. Constipation worsened, whereas scores for pain and emotional items improved in both groups. Objective response rates were 38.5 and 43.2% in the GCis and GCb groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both GCis and GCb regimens were feasible in terms of QOL. The GCb regimen may be associated with a better QOL status especially in regard to gastrointestinal symptoms.