Effectiveness of First-line Immune Checkpoint Blockade Versus Carboplatin-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.
European Medicines Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Immune checkpoint blockade
Metastatic urothelial cancer
Real-world data
Journal
European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
25
04
2019
accepted:
15
07
2019
pubmed:
1
8
2019
medline:
5
1
2021
entrez:
1
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Limited data compare first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients. The primary evidence guiding treatment decisions was a recent Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency safety alert based on emerging data from two ongoing phase III trials, reporting shorter survival in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative patients receiving immunotherapy. Final results from these trials are unknown. To compare survival in cisplatin-ineligible mUC patients receiving first-line immunotherapy versus those receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2017 mUC patients receiving first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 1530) or immunotherapy (n = 487) from January 1, 2011 to May 18, 2018 using the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), comparing 12- and 36-mo OS, and hazard ratios before and after 12 mo. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to address confounding in Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression model estimates of comparative effectiveness. IPTW-adjusted OS rates in the immunotherapy group were lower at 12 mo (39.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 34.0-45.3%] vs 46.1% [95% CI 43.4-48.8%]) but higher at 36 mo (28.3% [95% CI 21.8-34.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI 11.1-15.5%]) relative to the chemotherapy group. Immunotherapy treatment demonstrated inferior OS during the first 12 mo relative to carboplatin-based chemotherapy (IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62), but superior OS beyond 12 mo (IPTW-adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.85). Limitations include retrospective design and potential unmeasured confounding. In the setting of mUC, clinicians and patients should carefully consider how to balance the short-term benefit of chemotherapy against the long-term benefit of immunotherapy. To determine the optimal first-line therapy for metastatic bladder cancer patients who are unfit for cisplatin, we compared carboplatin-based chemotherapy versus immunotherapy using real-world data. Survival in the 1st year of treatment was lower with immunotherapy relative to chemotherapy, but for patients surviving beyond the 1st year, immunotherapy was superior.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Limited data compare first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients. The primary evidence guiding treatment decisions was a recent Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency safety alert based on emerging data from two ongoing phase III trials, reporting shorter survival in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative patients receiving immunotherapy. Final results from these trials are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To compare survival in cisplatin-ineligible mUC patients receiving first-line immunotherapy versus those receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2017 mUC patients receiving first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 1530) or immunotherapy (n = 487) from January 1, 2011 to May 18, 2018 using the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), comparing 12- and 36-mo OS, and hazard ratios before and after 12 mo. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to address confounding in Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression model estimates of comparative effectiveness.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
IPTW-adjusted OS rates in the immunotherapy group were lower at 12 mo (39.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 34.0-45.3%] vs 46.1% [95% CI 43.4-48.8%]) but higher at 36 mo (28.3% [95% CI 21.8-34.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI 11.1-15.5%]) relative to the chemotherapy group. Immunotherapy treatment demonstrated inferior OS during the first 12 mo relative to carboplatin-based chemotherapy (IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62), but superior OS beyond 12 mo (IPTW-adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.85). Limitations include retrospective design and potential unmeasured confounding.
CONCLUSIONS
In the setting of mUC, clinicians and patients should carefully consider how to balance the short-term benefit of chemotherapy against the long-term benefit of immunotherapy.
PATIENT SUMMARY
To determine the optimal first-line therapy for metastatic bladder cancer patients who are unfit for cisplatin, we compared carboplatin-based chemotherapy versus immunotherapy using real-world data. Survival in the 1st year of treatment was lower with immunotherapy relative to chemotherapy, but for patients surviving beyond the 1st year, immunotherapy was superior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31362898
pii: S0302-2838(19)30591-3
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.032
pmc: PMC6822167
mid: NIHMS1056717
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Carboplatin
BG3F62OND5
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
524-532Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K23 CA187185
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R21 CA227613
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):626-33
pubmed: 19433995
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Feb;15(1):23-30.e2
pubmed: 27324051
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):e653-e706
pubmed: 29208398
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jul 28;9:57
pubmed: 19638200
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Jan 15;181(2):108-19
pubmed: 25515168
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2013 Dec 17;1(3):1035
pubmed: 25848578
JAMA. 2018 Aug 7;320(5):469-477
pubmed: 30088010
Value Health. 2017 Sep;20(8):1009-1022
pubmed: 28964431
Epidemiology. 2016 May;27(3):368-77
pubmed: 26841057
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1483-1492
pubmed: 28967485
Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec;53(6):4460-4476
pubmed: 29756355
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1383-9
pubmed: 12663731
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Dec 1;4(12):1721-1728
pubmed: 30242316
World J Urol. 2018 Nov;36(11):1703-1709
pubmed: 29549485
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 10;30(2):191-9
pubmed: 22162575
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
pubmed: 19564179
Adv Ther. 2019 Aug;36(8):2122-2136
pubmed: 31140124
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Aug;13(8):530-534
pubmed: 28745935
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Apr 15;23(8):1920-1928
pubmed: 27827313
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Apr;17(2):105-113.e2
pubmed: 30527745
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):67-76
pubmed: 27939400
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep;18(17):3068-77
pubmed: 11001674
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2432-8
pubmed: 21555688
JAMA. 2019 Apr 9;321(14):1391-1399
pubmed: 30964529
Stat Med. 2013 Jul 20;32(16):2837-49
pubmed: 23239115