Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32757302›Full record

Trial reportCancer2020

A randomized phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab and acalabrutinib in patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer.

Tian Zhang, Michael R Harrison, Peter H O'Donnell, Ajjai S Alva, Noah M Hahn, Leonard J Appleman, Jeremy Cetnar, John M Burke, Mark T Fleming, Matthew I Milowsky and 12 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Tian ZhangDuke Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-8914-3531
Michael R HarrisonDuke Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Peter H O'DonnellUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.ORCID 0000-0003-2650-0049
Ajjai S AlvaUniversity of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Noah M HahnJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Leonard J ApplemanUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeremy CetnarOregon Health and Science University Center for Health, Portland, Oregon.
John M BurkeRocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Aurora, Colorado.
Mark T FlemingVirginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk, Virginia.
Matthew I MilowskyLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-8965-8129
Amir MortazaviOhio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Neal ShoreCarolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Guru P SonpavdeDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Emmett V SchmidtMerck & Co, Inc, North Wales, Pennsylvania.
Bojena BitmanAcerta Pharma (a member of the AstraZeneca group), South San Francisco, California.
Veerendra MunugalavadlaAcerta Pharma (a member of the AstraZeneca group), South San Francisco, California.
Raquel IzumiAcerta Pharma (a member of the AstraZeneca group), South San Francisco, California.
Priti PatelAcerta Pharma (a member of the AstraZeneca group), South San Francisco, California.
Janet StaatsDivision of Surgical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Cliburn ChanDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Kent J WeinholdDivision of Surgical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Daniel J GeorgeDuke Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

Acerta Pharma, a member of the AstraZeneca group
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInhibition of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) pathway has demonstrated clinical benefit in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC); however, response rates of 15% to 26% highlight the need for more effective therapies. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition may suppress myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and improve T-cell activation.

methodsThe Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Acalabrutinib and Pembrolizumab Immunotherapy Dual Checkpoint Inhibition in Platinum-Resistant Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (RAPID CHECK; also known as ACE-ST-005) was a randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab with or without the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib for patients with platinum-refractory mUC. The primary objectives were safety and objective response rates (ORRs) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immune profiling was performed to analyze circulating monocytic MDSCs and T cells.

resultsSeventy-five patients were treated with pembrolizumab (n = 35) or pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (n = 40). The ORR was 26% with pembrolizumab (9% with a complete response [CR]) and 20% with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (10% with a CR). The grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥15% of the patients were anemia (20%) with pembrolizumab and fatigue (23%), increased alanine aminotransferase (23%), urinary tract infections (18%), and anemia (18%) with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib. One patient treated with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib had high MDSCs at the baseline, which significantly decreased at week 7. Overall, MDSCs were not correlated with a clinical response, but some subsets of CD8+ T cells did increase during the combination treatment.

conclusionsBoth treatments were generally well tolerated, although serious AE rates were higher with the combination. Acalabrutinib plus pembrolizumab did not improve the ORR, PFS, or OS in comparison with pembrolizumab alone in mUC. Baseline and on-treatment peripheral monocytic MDSCs were not different in the treatment cohorts. Proliferating CD8+ T-cell subsets increased during treatment, particularly in the combination cohort. Ongoing studies are correlating these peripheral immunome findings with tissue-based immune cell infiltration.

Indexed as

AgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBenzamidesFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPyrazinesUrologic NeoplasmsacalabrutinibAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBenzamidespembrolizumabPyrazinesimmunotherapyprogrammed cell death receptor 1protein kinase inhibitorurologic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32757302
PMCPMC7590121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.