4.5 Review

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Front-line Therapy for Urothelial Cancer

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 943-947

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.010

关键词

Urothelial carcinoma; Bladder; Immune checkpoint inhibitor; Chemotherapy; First-line treatment

资金

  1. Thomas Powles certifies that all conflicts of interest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study summarized the performance of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic bladder cancer, showing that monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors is not superior to chemotherapy, and the combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective, but the effect is not significant enough.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard-of-care front-line treatment option for PD-L1-positive, cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The data supporting this are based on two single-arm trials. Randomised trials to confirm these findings and test new combinations have recently been performed. It was hoped that these trials would clarify some of the previous uncertainties. In this report we summarise the findings from these trials and perform a combined analysis. The results show that immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is not superior to chemotherapy as things currently stand. The chemoimmunotherapy combination shows a probable efficacy signal, but this appears to be insufficient to change practice. Patient summary: In this report, we summarise the outcomes of three recent trials that investigated immunotherapy (IMT) on its own and combined with chemotherapy (CT) for patients with metastatic bladder cancer who had not previously received any treatment. We show that IMT on its own is not better than CT for these patients. There is a sign that combined CT and IMT probably has a benefit, but it does not seem to be large enough to justify a change in treatment recommendations. (C) 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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