4.7 Article

Subsequent Systemic Therapy following Platinum and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10082005

关键词

urothelial carcinoma; chemotherapy; salvage therapy; clinical trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma after failure with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors remains controversial. This study found that participation in clinical trials and having a good performance status are associated with benefits from subsequent therapy for pretreated mUC.
Treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after failure with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains controversial. To explore the role of subsequent systemic therapy, medical records from 436 patients who were consecutively treated with chemotherapy for mUC between May 2017 and April 2021 were collected from a single-center cancer registry. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) were also assessed. Among the 318 patients who failed both platinum and ICIs, subsequent therapy was delivered to 166 (52%) patients: taxanes (n = 56), platinum rechallenge (n = 46), pemetrexed (n = 39), and clinical trials (n = 25). Objective responses to third-line therapy were noted in 50 patients (RR, 30%; 95% CI, 23-37%). The patients who were enrolled in clinical trials and treated with platinum rechallenge were significantly more likely to respond than those treated with taxanes or pemetrexed. The median PFS and OS were 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.2 months) and 9.5 months (95% CI, 8.1-11.0 months), respectively. Similar to RR, PFS and OS were longer for the patients who were enrolled in clinical trials. Based on multivariate analyses, good performance status and enrollment in clinical trials are associated with benefits from subsequent therapy for pretreated mUC.

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

4.7
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