Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38888683›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2024

Difference of oncological efficacy between two immune checkpoint inhibitors following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with unresectable, metastatic, advanced urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter real-world Japanese cohort.

Makito Miyake, Nobutaka Nishimura, Yuki Oda, Tatsuki Miyamoto, Kota Iida, Kuniaki Inoue, Akira Tachibana, Takanosuke Yoshikawa, Keichi Sakamoto, Mikiko Ohnishi and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

26 authors.

Makito Miyake *Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan. makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-7356
Nobutaka Nishimura *Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Yuki OdaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Tatsuki MiyamotoDepartment of Urology, Takai Hospital, Tenri, Nara, Japan.
Kota IidaDepartment of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Kuniaki InoueDepartment of Urology, Osaka Gyoumeikan Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Akira TachibanaDepartment of Urology, Hoshigaoka Medical Center, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan.
Takanosuke YoshikawaDepartment of Urology, Tane General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Keichi SakamotoDepartment of Urology, Osaka Kaisei Hospital, Yodogawa, Osaka, 532-0003, Japan.
Mikiko OhnishiDepartment of Urology, Nara City Hospital, Nara, Japan.
Fumisato MaesakaDepartment of Urology, Saiseikai Chuwa Hospital, Nara, Japan.
Norimi TakamatsuDepartment of Urology, Yamatotakada Municipal Hospital, Yamatotakada, Nara, Japan.
Kosuke MiedaDepartment of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.
Chihiro OhmoriDepartment of Urology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Japan.
Toshihiko MatsubaraDepartment of Urology, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, Matsusaka, Mie, Japan.
Mitsuru TomizawaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Takuto ShimizuDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Kenta OhnishiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Shunta HoriDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Yosuke MorizawaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Daisuke GotohDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Yasushi NakaiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Kazumasa TorimotoDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Nobumichi TanakaDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Kiyohide FujimotoDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-Cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Nara Urological Research and Treatment Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaintenance avelumab is currently recommended for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic (mUC) achieving at least stable disease (SD) on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (1L-CT). Pembrolizumab is an alternative therapeutic avenue for this patient cohort in clinical practice. We investigated real-world data, focusing on the correlation between response to 1L-CT and oncological efficacy of subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with avelumab or pembrolizumab.

methodsA multicenter database registered 626 patients with mUC diagnosed from 2008-2023; among these, 175 receiving 2-6 cycles of 1L-CT followed by ICI therapy. Patients were categorized based on response to 1L-CT using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (v1.1). Objective response rate on ICI, progression to ICI-free survival (ICI-PFS), and overall survival from start of 1L-CT were compared between avelumab-treated and pembrolizumab-treated patients in each response subgroup.

resultsICI-PFS was significantly longer in patients achieving partial response on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab compared to those receiving avelumab. Notably, patients achieving SD on 1L-CT and subsequently receiving pembrolizumab manifested significantly higher objective response rate (14% and 41%, respectively) and prolonged ICI-PFS relative to those receiving avelumab. In contrast, overall survival did not delineate difference between patients treated with avelumab versus pembrolizumab. Similar findings were discerned in the subanalysis of patients having favorable SD (tumor shrinkage, from - 29 to 0%) and unfavorable SD (tumor enlargement, from + 1 to + 19%) on 1L-CT.

conclusionsOur study provides real-world evidence regarding difference of oncological efficacy between maintenance avelumab and subsequent pembrolizumab in patients with mUC who achieved partial response or SD on 1L-CT.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Transitional CellEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesUrologic NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedavelumabImmune Checkpoint InhibitorspembrolizumabAvelumabChemotherapyKidney pelvisPembrolizumabUreterUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.