Retrospective study to assess the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced urothelial carcinoma in real-world setting

Abstract only e17043 Background: Checkpoint Inhibitors (CPI) have become a new standard of treatment in advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, little is known regarding the outcome of patients in daily practice.We aimed to assess tumor response and toxicity of CPIs in a cohort of patients treated i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 38; no. 15_suppl; p. e17043
Main Authors: Sevillano Fernandez, Elena, Puente, Javier, Vidal, Natalia, Pinto, Alvaro, Garcia Sanchez, Lourdes, Fiorini, Aldo, Chara Velarde, Luis Enrique, Ariza, Irene Nalda, Cassinello, Javier, Rodriguez, Angel, Galvan Ruiz, Saray, Rodriguez-Moreno, Juan Francisco, Barquin, Arantzazu, Ruiz, Sergio, Navarro, Paloma, Yagüe, Monica, Grande, Enrique, García-Donas, Jesús
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: 20-05-2020
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract only e17043 Background: Checkpoint Inhibitors (CPI) have become a new standard of treatment in advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, little is known regarding the outcome of patients in daily practice.We aimed to assess tumor response and toxicity of CPIs in a cohort of patients treated in “real world” conditions. In parallel, a comprehensive molecular study in tumor samples from these patients, is ongoing. Methods: We designed an observational retrospective study within the “Grupo Centro” collaborative group. Adult patients diagnosed of metastasic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and treated with CPIs between 2011-2019 in any of the 20 centers of the group, were eligible. Results: Up to date 100 patients have been included (82% males) with a median age of 74 years (48 -96). In 82% patients primary was bladder cancer. Most common metastasic sites were bone (26%) and liver (16%).With a median follow up of 10,6 months(mo) median progression free survival (mPFS) was 6,6mo (1,4-95,4 range) and median Overall Survival (mOS) was 21.3mo (3,8-121,8). 38% of patients received CPIs in first line(L): atezolizumab:27, pembrolizumab: 10, nivolumab:1. The median number of cycles was 8,2. Up to 51% received platinum-based combinations in first line. 69% (69/100) pts received 2L treatment: 68% with CPIs, 27,5% with chemotherapy and 4% with FGFR inhibitors (as part of a clinical trial). 2L mPFS was 3,5 mo (1,9-25.9). 23% (23/100) patients received 3L, of them 26% (6/23) were treated with CPIs. 3L mPFS:8,3mo(0,4-43,8). As a whole, patients treated with CPI accross different lines, achieved complete response in 8% of the cases, partial response in 18% and stable disease in 15%. Up to 44% of cases presented progressive disease as best response and evaluation was not available in 15%. Most common G1-2 AEs related to immunotherapy were: asthenia:31%,pruritus:16% and anorexia: 9%.10% pts experienced G3-4 toxicity: asthenia G3: 4, diarrhea G3: 1, erythrodysesthesia G3:1, arthromyalgia G3: 1, cardiac arrest G4:1,pneumonitis G4:1,anemia G3:1. Conclusions: This study confirms the efficacy and security of CPIs in real world. Response rates and toxicity profile were comparable to those reported in clinical trials.
ISSN:0732-183X
1527-7755
DOI:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e17043