Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39708183›Full record

ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2024

Target trial emulation to evaluate the effect of immune-related adverse events on outcomes in metastatic urothelial cancer.

Renate Pichler, Josef Fritz, Sarah Maier, Melanie R Hassler, Johanna Krauter, David D Andrea, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Kilian Gust, Keiichiro Mori, Karl H Tully and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

24 authors.

Renate PichlerDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. Renate.Pichler@i-med.ac.at.
Josef FritzDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sarah MaierDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Melanie R HasslerDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Johanna KrauterDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
David D AndreaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kilian GustDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Karl H TullyDepartment of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Dora Niedersuess-BekeKlinik Ottakring, I. Medizinische Abteilung, Zentrum Für Onkologie, Hämatologie Und Palliativmedizin, Vienna, Austria.
Lea KorberKlinik Ottakring, I. Medizinische Abteilung, Zentrum Für Onkologie, Hämatologie Und Palliativmedizin, Vienna, Austria.
Jasmin Alija SpiegelbergDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Thomas BauernhoferDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
José D SubielaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, Universidad de Alcala, Madrid, Spain.
Roman MayrDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Andreas KronbichlerDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, Nephrology and Hypertension, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Marco MoschiniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Jeremy TeohDepartment of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Hanno UlmerDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Laura S MertensDepartment of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
European Association of Urology–Young Academic Urologists (EAU-YAU): Urothelial Carcinoma Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an important therapeutic pillar in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) appears to be associated with improved outcomes in observational studies. However, these associations are likely affected by immortal time bias and do not represent causal effects. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of irAEs on outcomes while correcting for immortal time bias, using target trial emulation (TTE).

methodsTTE was contrasted to adjusted naïve and time-updated Cox models. We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study involving mUC patients under ICI. The primary objective was to assess the impact of irAEs on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included the influence of irAEs on objective response rates (ORRs) to ICI and the influence of systemic corticosteroids on outcomes.

resultsAmong 335 patients (median age: 69 yrs), 69.6% received ICI in the second line or further lines. During a median follow-up of 21.1 months, 122 (36.4%) patients developed irAEs of any grade (grade ≥ 3: 14.9%). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS ranged from 0.37 for naïve adjusted Cox model to 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-1.30) with time-updated covariates, and from 0.41 to 1.10 (95% CI, 0.69-1.75) for OS. TTE accounting for immortal time bias yielded a HR of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.72-1.44) for PFS, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.62-1.30) for OS. In contrast to the naïve Cox model (HR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.26-4.05), the presence of irAEs was no longer a predictive factor for improved ORR in time-updated Cox models (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.68-2.36) and TTE (HR = 1.43, 95% CI 0.89-2.29). In patients with irAEs, systemic corticosteroids did not negatively impact survival.

conclusionUsing TTE, we were able to show that the occurrence of irAEs is no longer associated with better survival or improved response rates to ICI in mUC patients, in contrast to the naïve analysis. These findings demonstrate that TTE is a suitable formal framework to avoid immortal time bias in studies with time-dependent non-interventional exposures.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Transitional CellDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisRetrospective StudiesUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsAdverse eventsImmortal time biasImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapyMetastaticTarget trial emulationUrothelial cancer

Identifiers

PMID39708183
PMCPMC11663210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.