Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33740735›Full record

ArticleESMO open2021

Rethinking prognostic factors in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the immune checkpoint blockade era: a multicenter retrospective study.

J Ruiz-Bañobre, A Molina-Díaz, O Fernández-Calvo, N Fernández-Núñez, A Medina-Colmenero, L Santomé, M Lázaro-Quintela, M Mateos-González, N García-Cid, R López-López and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

J Ruiz-BañobreMedical Oncology Department, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Translational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), CIBERONC, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Electronic address: juan.ruiz.banobre@sergas.es.
A Molina-DíazMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
O Fernández-CalvoMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
N Fernández-NúñezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain.
A Medina-ColmeneroMedical Oncology Department, Centro Oncológico de Galicia, A Coruña, Spain.
L SantoméMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Povisa, Vigo, Spain.
M Lázaro-QuintelaMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
M Mateos-GonzálezMedical Oncology Department, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Translational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), CIBERONC, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
N García-CidMedical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
R López-LópezMedical Oncology Department, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Translational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), CIBERONC, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
S VázquezMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain.
U Anido-HerranzMedical Oncology Department, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Translational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), CIBERONC, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESComplejo Hospitalario de Ourense · ESHospital Universitario Lucus Augusti · ESCentro Oncológico de Galicia · ESComplexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña · ESPovisa Hospital · ESUniversity Hospital Complex Of Vigo · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in daily clinical practice. Knowledge about the influence of baseline clinical and analytical factors on therapy outcomes is scarce. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 119 previously treated or untreated mUC patients under anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in a real-world scenario. The objectives of this study were to confirm the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy and to identify pretreatment factors influencing therapy outcomes. In addition, an independent prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was developed and internally validated.

resultsMedian OS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.4-10.4], median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.80 months (95% CI, 2.4-3.4), disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (95% CI, 31-49), and overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (95% CI, 15-31). Presence of peritoneal metastases was associated with poor OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.40, 95% CI, 1.08-5.33; P = 0.03]. Use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.02; P = 0.02) and PFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.09; P = 0.005), and lower DCR (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.17-0.89; P = 0.03) and ORR (OR = 0.18, 95% CI, 0.02-1.60; P = 0.002). The three risk category prognostic model developed included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PPI use, albumin level, presence of liver metastases, and presence of peritoneal metastases variables and was associated with higher risk of death (HR = 3.00, 95% CI, 1.97-4.56; P = 0.0001).

conclusionsThis study confirms anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy as a safe and effective treatment option in daily clinical practice for mUC patients. It also describes the presence of peritoneal metastases as an independent prognostic factor for OS and underlines the association between PPI use and worse therapeutic outcomes. Finally, it proposes a new easy-to-use risk-assessment model for OS prediction.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsimmunotherapyperitoneumprognosisproton-pump inhibitorsreal worldurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33740735
PMCPMC7980066
OpenAlexW3139470044

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.