4.8 Article

Neoadjuvant PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 blockade in patients with cisplatin-ineligible operable high-risk urothelial carcinoma

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-1086-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca/MedImmune
  2. MDACC Immunotherapy Platform, the MD Anderson Physician Scientist Award
  3. Khalifa Physician Scientist Award
  4. Andrew Sabin Family Foundation Fellows Award
  5. Wendy and Leslie Irvin Barnhart Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint therapy is being tested in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with localized urothelial carcinoma(1,2), with one study reporting data in cisplatin-ineligible patients who received anti-PD-L1 monotherapy(2) . The study reported that patients with bulky tumors, a known high-risk feature defined as greater than clinical T2 disease, had fewer responses, with pathological complete response rate of 17%2. Here we report on the first pilot combination neoadjuvant trial (NCT02812420) with anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) plus anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) in cisplatin-ineligible patients, with all tumors identified as having high-risk features (n = 28). High-risk features were defined by bulky tumors, variant histology, lymphovascular invasion, hydronephrosis and/or high-grade upper tract disease(3-5). The primary endpoint was safety and we observed 6 of 28 patients (21%) with grade >= 3 immune-related adverse events, consisting of asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities (n = 4), hepatitis and colitis (n = 2). We also observed pathological complete response of 37.5% and downstaging to pT1 or less in 58% of patients who completed surgery (n = 24). In summary, we provide initial safety, efficacy and biomarker data with neoadjuvant combination anti-PD-L1 plus anti-CTLA-4, which warrants further development for patients with localized urothelial carcinoma, especially cisplatin-ineligible patients with high-risk features who do not currently have an established standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据