ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Real-world data of atezolizumab in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial bladder cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials of atezolizumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (mUBC) report controversial efficacy data. Furthermore, real-world evidence about this use is limited.
aimWe aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of atezolizumab in a real-world population with mUBC, to explore effectiveness with regard to selected poor prognostic criteria such as performance status by Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group (ECOG), hemoglobin levels and liver metastases, and to determine the safety profile of atezolizumab.
methodMulticenter, retrospective real-world study including previously treated mUBC patients who received atezolizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Additionally, progression-free survival (PFS), best response reached and safety data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed, while OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsA total of 185 patients (84.9% men, median age 69 years) were included. Median PFS was 4.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6-6.0], and median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI 11.8-28.5), with an objective response rate of 28.1%. OS was higher for patients with ECOG 0-1 versus 2-3 [24.5 months (95% CI 14.5-34.6) vs. 5.2 (95% CI 4.4-6.0), p = 0.004]; and for patients without liver metastases [25.4 months (95% CI 16.2-34.6) vs. 6.4 months (95% CI 4.0-8.1), p = 0.006]. Regarding hemoglobin levels, no survival differences were detected. Adverse events were registered in 55.1% of patients.
conclusionIn a real-world population with previously treated mUBC, atezolizumab seems to provide clinically relevant benefit, which is even higher for patients with ECOG 0-1 and without liver metastases, with an acceptable safety profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38112892What 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.