Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37516059›Full record

Trial reportESMO open2023

Clinical, molecular, and immune correlates of the Immunotherapy Response Score in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma under atezolizumab monotherapy: analysis of the phase II IMvigor210 trial.

M Ferreiro-Pantín, U Anido-Herranz, Y Z Betancor, V Cebey-López, L León-Mateos, J García-González, S M García-Acuña, N Fernández-Díaz, J M C Tubio, R López-López and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. TAPISTRY: A Phase II Study of Atezolizumab in Patients with Tumor Mutational Burden-High Tumors.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Ferreiro-PantínTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Genomes and Disease, Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
U Anido-HerranzTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
Y Z BetancorTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Genomes and Disease, Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
V Cebey-LópezTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
L León-MateosTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid.
J García-GonzálezTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid.
S M García-AcuñaDepartment of Pathology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
N Fernández-DíazTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
J M C TubioGenomes and Disease, Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela.
R López-LópezTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid.
J Ruiz-BañobreTranslational Medical Oncology Group (ONCOMET), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Genomes and Disease, Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Department of Medical Oncology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid. Electronic address: juan.ruiz.banobre@sergas.es.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) scenario there are no consistent immune checkpoint blockade predictive biomarkers. Recently a novel pan-tumor molecular tissue-based biomarker, the Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS), has been proposed. We conducted a retrospective study to validate the prognostic/predictive utility of the IRS in patients with aUC under atezolizumab monotherapy and to characterize its underlying molecular/immune features in the context of the IMvigor210 phase II trial. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis is a post hoc pooled analysis of 261 patients with available clinical, molecular, and immune tumor data treated with atezolizumab monotherapy in the IMvigor210 phase II clinical trial. Efficacy endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and overall response rate (ORR). Survival estimates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate factors independently associated with OS. Factors associated with disease control (DC) and response were tested with logistic regression in univariable and multivariable analyses. Comparisons between patient and disease characteristics were carried out using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. All P values were two-sided, and those <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsHigh IRS was significantly associated with a better OS in univariable [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, P < 0.001] and multivariable (HR = 0.60, P = 0.018) analyses. DCR and ORR were significantly higher among high IRS patients (DCR for high IRS versus low IRS patients: 57% versus 32%, P < 0.001; ORR: 42% versus 10%, P < 0.001). High IRS patients presented a higher probability of DC and response in univariable [DC: odds ratio (OR) = 2.72, P < 0.001; response: OR = 3.92, P < 0.001] and multivariable (DC: OR = 2.72, P < 0.001; response: OR = 3.92, P < 0.001) analyses.

conclusionsThis study validates IRS as a strong independent prognostic and predictive biomarker for OS and DC/response in patients with aUC treated with atezolizumab monotherapy in the IMvigor210 phase II clinical trial.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunotherapyRetrospective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedatezolizumabBiomarkers, Tumoratezolizumabbiomarkerbladder cancerimmunotherapyurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID37516059
PMCPMC10485401
OpenAlexW4385322615

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.