1
|
Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancy: Evolution in Revolution or Revolution in Evolution. Cancer Treat Res 2022; 183:201-223. [PMID: 35551661 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7_7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Immunotherapy, the 5th pillar of cancer care after surgery, radiotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and precision therapy (molecular targeted therapy), is revolutionizing the standard of care in certain patients with genitourinary malignancies. As modest clinical benefits of IL-2 for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy for early-stage bladder cancers in the past years, immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies demonstrate meaningful survival benefit and durable clinical response in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and some prostate cancer. Despite best efforts, the benefits are limited to a minority of unselected patients due to the complexities of biomarker development. Now come the next hurdles: figuring out which patients best respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors and which patients won't respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors? How best to approach immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies to extend/maximize the treatment response as long as possible? How to overcome therapeutic resistance by specific concurrent immunomodulators or targeted therapy or chemotherapy? The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination or sequencing with chemotherapy or other targeted therapies or other immunomodulating therapeutics in the early disease, neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting is actively under exploration. Ideal strategy for cancer care is to provide not just more time, but more quality time: there remain unmet needs for novel therapies that exploit molecular or genetic pathways to extend survival without compromising health-related quality of life for patients with advanced genitourinary malignancies. Further research is needed to discover new therapeutic strategies, and validate efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings.
Collapse
|
2
|
Galsky MD, Mortazavi A, Milowsky MI, George S, Gupta S, Fleming MT, Dang LH, Geynisman DM, Walling R, Alter RS, Kassar M, Wang J, Gupta S, Davis N, Picus J, Philips G, Quinn DI, Haines GK, Hahn NM, Zhao Q, Yu M, Pal SK. Randomized Double-Blind Phase II Study of Maintenance Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:1797-1806. [PMID: 32271672 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.03091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer is typically administered for a fixed duration followed by observation until progression. "Switch maintenance" therapy with PD-1 blockade at the time of chemotherapy cessation may be attractive for mechanistic and pragmatic reasons. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic urothelial cancer achieving at least stable disease on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned double-blind 1:1 to switch maintenance pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks versus placebo for up to 24 months. Patients with disease progression on placebo could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included determining overall survival as well as treatment outcomes according to PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). RESULTS Between December 2015 and November 2018, 108 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53). The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 10% with placebo. Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 59% receiving pembrolizumab and 38% of patients receiving placebo. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance pembrolizumab versus placebo (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.1 to 7.3 months] v 3.0 months [95% CI; 2.7 to 5.5 months]; hazard ratio, 0.65; log-rank P = .04; maximum efficiency robust test P = .039). Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 12.9 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab and 18.7 months (95% CI, 11.4 months to not reached) with placebo. There was no significant interaction between PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall survival. CONCLUSION Switch maintenance pembrolizumab leads to additional objective responses in patients achieving at least stable disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and prolongs progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew D Galsky
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Amir Mortazavi
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH
| | - Matthew I Milowsky
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Saby George
- Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
| | - Sumati Gupta
- Division of Oncology, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Mark T Fleming
- US Oncology Research, Virginia Oncology Associates, Hampton, VA
| | | | - Daniel M Geynisman
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Radhika Walling
- Community Regional Cancer Care, Community Health Network, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Robert S Alter
- John Theurer Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ
| | | | - Jue Wang
- University of Arizona Cancer Center at Dignity Health St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Shilpa Gupta
- Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
| | - Nancy Davis
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Joel Picus
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, and Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - George Philips
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - David I Quinn
- Division of Oncology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA
| | - G Kenneth Haines
- Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Noah M Hahn
- Department of Oncology and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Qianqian Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Menggang Yu
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Sumanta K Pal
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA
| |
Collapse
|