Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35210859›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2022

Significant Improvement of Prognosis After the Advent of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis on Real-World Data.

Makito Miyake, Nobutaka Nishimura, Takuto Shimizu, Mikiko Ohnishi, Masaomi Kuwada, Yoshitaka Itami, Takeshi Inoue, Kenta Ohnishi, Yoshihiro Matsumoto, Takanori Yoshida and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

22 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Makito MiyakeDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9503-7356
Nobutaka NishimuraDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2000-2612
Takuto ShimizuDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Mikiko OhnishiDepartment of Urology, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, Matsusaka, Mie, Japan.
Masaomi KuwadaDepartment of Urology, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, Matsusaka, Mie, Japan.
Yoshitaka ItamiDepartment of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.
Takeshi InoueDepartment of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.
Kenta OhnishiDepartment of Urology, Hoshigaoka Medical Center, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan.
Yoshihiro MatsumotoDepartment of Urology, Hoshigaoka Medical Center, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan.
Takanori YoshidaDepartment of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Yoshihiro TatsumiDepartment of Urology, JCHO Yamato Koriyama Hospital, Koriyama, Nara, Japan.
Masatake ShinoharaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Gyoumeikan Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Shunta HoriDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9514-9964
Yosuke MorizawaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7142-5901
Daisuke GotohDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6056-3820
Yasushi NakaiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Satoshi AnaiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Kazumasa TorimotoDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2870-0466
Katsuya AokiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Tomomi FujiiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Nobumichi TanakaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9242-7877
Kiyohide FujimotoDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Nara Medical University · JPNara Prefecture General Medical CenterHoshigaoka Medical Center · JPKoriyama Institute of Health Sciences · JPOsaka Ekisaikai Hospital · JPTane General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe treatment landscape for advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has shifted substantially since the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We investigated the extent to which pembrolizumab therapy is superior to conventional chemotherapy as a second-line treatment. PATIENTS AND

methodsA multicenter-derived database registered 454 patients diagnosed with aUC between 2008 and 2020. Of these, 94 patients (21%) who received second-line pembrolizumab and 75 (17%) who received second-line chemotherapy but never received third-line or later ICI therapy were included. We compared overall survival (OS) from the initial date of first-line chemotherapy between two groups by adjusting for prognostic factors through propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated using a multivariate Cox regression analysis. To identify patients who were more likely to benefit from second-line pembrolizumab than from chemotherapy, we performed a subgroup analysis for OS with an IPTW-adjusted model.

resultsThe PSM-adjusted comparison showed a significant improvement in the prognosis with second-line pembrolizumab use (P = 0.01). The OS benefit with the advent of pembrolizumab was 8 months (18 months vs 26 months). Multivariable analyses using IPTW adjustment demonstrated that lymph node metastasis (P = 0.001), lung metastasis (P = 0.013), and bone metastasis (P = 0.003) were poor independent prognostic factors, and pembrolizumab use (P = 0.021) was a favorable independent prognostic factor. Subgroup analyses revealed that pembrolizumab was associated with survival benefits over chemotherapy in all subgroups, including young patients (age <70 years), those who received radical surgery, and those without visceral metastasis.

conclusionWe demonstrated a significant improvement in prognosis after the advent of pembrolizumab for patients with aUC. ICIs should not be restricted based on patient characteristics.

Indexed as

chemotherapyimmunotherapypropensity scoresurvivalurinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35210859
PMCPMC8858764
OpenAlexW4212932842

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.