Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34290538›Full record

ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2021

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).

Melissa Bersanelli, Sebastiano Buti, Alessio Cortellini, Marco Bandini, Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Filippo Pederzoli, Elena Farè, Daniele Raggi, Patrizia Giannatempo, Ugo De Giorgi and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Leptomeningeal metastasis fromTranslational cancer research · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

24 authors.

Melissa BersanelliMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Sebastiano ButiMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0876-0226
Alessio CortelliniDepartment of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1209-5735
Marco BandiniVita Salute San Raffaele University and Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Giuseppe Luigi BannaPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Oncology Department, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Filippo PederzoliVita Salute San Raffaele University and Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Elena FarèFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Genito-Urinary Oncology Unit, Milano, Italy.
Daniele RaggiFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Genito-Urinary Oncology Unit, Milano, Italy.
Patrizia GiannatempoFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Genito-Urinary Oncology Unit, Milano, Italy.
Ugo De GiorgiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7520-2908
Umberto BassoOncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
Tania LosannoMedical Oncology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Daniele SantiniMedical Oncology, Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy.
Claudia MucciariniRamazzini Hospital, Medical Oncology Unit, Carpi, Italy.
Marcello TucciDepartment of Oncology, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Italy.
Rosa TambaroUOC Oncologia Medica Uro-Ginecologica, Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale Napoli, Italy.
Azzurra FarnesiMedical Oncology of Livorno, Italy.
Orazio CaffoSanta Chiara Hospital, Medical Oncology, Trento, Italy.
Antonello VecciaSanta Chiara Hospital, Medical Oncology, Trento, Italy.
Emanuele NaglieriDepartment Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiVita Salute San Raffaele University and Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy.
Giuseppe ProcopioFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Genito-Urinary Oncology Unit, Milano, Italy.
Sandro PignataUOC Oncologia Medica Uro-Ginecologica, Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale Napoli, Italy.
Andrea NecchiVita Salute San Raffaele University and Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune 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.

methodsData 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.

resultsThe 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,

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

Indexed as

chemotherapyimmune checkpoint inhibitorsimmunotherapymetastatic urothelial carcinomaUrothelial cancer

Identifiers

PMID34290538
PMCPMC8274126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.