ArticleBJU international2024
The immune-related adverse events paradox in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after atezolizumab immunotherapy: analysis of individual patient data from IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 trials.
Article in BJU international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Target trial emulation to evaluate the effect of immune-related adverse events on outcomes in metastatic urothelial cancer.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2024Article
- Safety of Immunomodulatory Systemic Therapies Used in the Management of Immune-Related Cutaneous Adverse Events.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the association between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and oncological outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and whether the administration of systemic corticosteroids diminishes therapeutic impact. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe association between irAEs occurrence and clinical progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was tested by means of multivariable Cox or competing-risks regression, when appropriate. Patients experiencing irAEs were further stratified based on systemic corticosteroids administration. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by repeating all the analyses with median time to irAE as landmark point.
resultsWe relied on individual participant data from two prospective trials for advanced urothelial cancer: IMvigor210 and IMvigor211. A total of 896 patients who received atezolizumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer were considered. Overall, irAEs were recorded in 195 patients and the median time to irAEs was 64 days. On multivariable analysis, irAEs were inversely associated with the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.61; P < 0.001), overall mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41-0.64; P < 0.001), and cancer-specific mortality (subdistributional HR [sHR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Moreover, our results did not refute the supposition that the administration of systemic corticosteroids does not impact oncological outcomes (PFS: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.34, P = 0.629; OS: HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.51-1.64, P = 0.613; CSS: sHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.36, P = 0.630). The sensitivity analysis confirmed our findings.
conclusionsThe development of irAEs while receiving atezolizumab treatment was associated with improved oncological outcomes, namely overall and cancer-specific mortality, and PFS. These findings seem to not be substantially affected by administration of systemic corticosteroids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.