Modified MVAC as a Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma after Failure of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Treatment

Chronological transition in outcome of second-line treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer after pembrolizumab approval: a multicenter retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

After first-line chemotherapy failure, metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients undergo pembrolizumab (PEM) or gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) therapy. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of second-line GD or PEM for mUC patients.

METHODS

A total of 198 mUC patients from Nagoya City University and affiliated hospitals who received second-line treatment were grouped according to immune check point inhibitor (ICI) availability: Groups A (pre-ICI: n = 104) and B (post-ICI: n = 94). We compared clinical outcomes using Kaplan-Meier curves. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses assessed potential prognostic factors for overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Median OS was significantly longer for Group B [median 13.6 months, 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.6-17.6] than A (7.6 months, 5.3-8.8). By sub-group analysis, patients received no additional treatment (Naïve, n = 70), or PEM or GD (Salvage, n = 24) in Group B, with median OS of Naïve and A groups similar. Compared to the Salvage group, significant differences in OS were observed (median 7.6 months, 95% CI 5.3-8.8; Group A, 7.6 months, 4.7-13.8; Naïve, 25.7 months, 14.0-31.0; p < 0.01). For the Salvage group, OS for sequential treatment of GD-salvage PEM and PEM-salvage GD patients was similar (p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis showed a low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and high geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) as significant prognostic factors affecting long OS [95% CI 1.12-3.45, hazard ratio (HR): 1.97; 95% CI 0.24-0.71, 0.41, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Second-line GD or PEM therapy for mUC patients showed equivalent survival benefits. GNRI and NLR are prognostic biomarkers for survival outcome.

SIU-ICUD recommendations on bladder cancer: systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer

The SIU (Société Internationale d'Urologie)-ICUD (International Consultation on Urologic Diseases) working group on systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer has summarized the most recent findings on the aforementioned topic and came to conclusions and recommendations according to the evidence published. In Europe and the United States, treatment for metastatic UC has changed a great deal recently, mainly involving a move from chemotherapy to immune checkpoint blockers. This is particularly true in platinum-refractory disease, where supportive randomized data exist. Five checkpoint blockers have been approved in this setting by the FDA: avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab have been approved in Europe.

Comparison of single agent versus combined chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced urothelial cancer (UC) and is generally used in the first-line setting. However, the optimal salvage treatment for previously treated UC patients is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials of single agent versus combined chemotherapy as salvage treatment in previously treated UC patients.

Methods

Trials published between 1994 and 2015 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library). All relevant studies were independently identified by two authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS), and grade 3/4 toxicities were extracted and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.0).

Results

Fifty cohorts with 1,685 patients were included for analysis: 814 patients were treated with single agent chemotherapy and 871 with combined chemotherapy. Pooled OS was significantly higher at 1 year for combined chemotherapy than for single agent (relative risk [RR] 1.52; 95% CI: 1.01–2.37; P=0.03) but not for 2-year OS (RR 1.31; 95% CI: 0.92–1.85; P=0.064). Additionally, combined chemotherapy significantly improved ORR (RR 2.25; 95% CI: 1.60–3.18; P<0.001) and DCR (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01–1.25, P=0.033) compared to single agent for advanced UC patients. As for grade 3 and 4 toxicities, more frequencies of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in the combined chemotherapy than in single agent group, while equivalent frequencies of anemia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were found between the two groups.

Conclusion

In comparison with single agent alone, combined chemotherapy as salvage treatment for advanced UC patients significantly improved ORR, DCR, and 1-year OS, but not 2-year OS. Our findings support the need to compare combined chemotherapy with single agent alone in the salvage setting in large prospective trials due to its potential survival benefit in advanced UC patients.

Predicting the response of patients with advanced urothelial cancer to methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) after the failure of gemcitabine and platinum (GP)

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based systemic chemotherapy is the treatment of choice for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Although no chemotherapeutic regimen is established as a second-line therapy, recent studies reported that methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin and cisplatin (MVAC) elicited a significant response in patients who failed gemcitabine and platinum (GP) chemotherapy. We investigated the clinical factors useful for predicting a favourable response to MVAC in UC patients who failed GP.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with advanced UC who received second-line MVAC chemotherapy after failure with first-line GP chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses based on Cox's regression were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) after second-line MVAC chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period after the first MVAC administration was 10.0 months. The median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1-7.9) and 14.5 months (95% CI, 7.4-21.4), respectively. The overall response rate was 57.8%. The response to first-line GP chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.500; p = 0.012) and patient age (HR, 1.047; p = 0.033) were predictors of PFS after MVAC chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The response to first-line GP chemotherapy and age were independent predictors of PFS in patients who received second-line MVAC chemotherapy. This report is the first to describe independent predictors of PFS after MVAC chemotherapy.

Cisplatin- Versus Non-Cisplatin-based First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Previously Treated With Perioperative Cisplatin

INTRODUCTION

The optimal choice of first-line chemotherapy for patients with relapse of urothelial carcinoma (UC) after perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy (PCBC) is unclear. We investigated the outcomes with cisplatin rechallenge versus a non-cisplatin regimen in patients with recurrent metastatic UC after PCBC in a multicenter retrospective study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual patient-level data were collected for patients who had received various first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced UC after previous PCBC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the prognostic ability of the type of perioperative and first-line chemotherapy to independently affect overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after accounting for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Data were available for 145 patients (12 centers). The mean age was 62 years; the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was > 0 for 42.0% of the patients. Of the 145 patients, 63% had received cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy. The median time from previous chemotherapy (TFPC) was 6.2 months (range, 1-154 months). The median OS was 22 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-27 months), and the median PFS was 6 months (95% CI, 5-7 months). A better ECOG PS and a longer TFPC (> 12 months vs. ≤ 12 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.52; P < .001) was prognostic for OS and PFS. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with poor OS (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.13-3.06; P = .015), which appeared to be pronounced in those patients with a TFPC of ≤ 12 months. Retreatment with cisplatin in the first-line setting was associated with worse OS (HR, 3.38; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present retrospective analysis suggest that for patients who have undergone previous PCBC for UC, rechallenging with cisplatin might confer a poorer OS, especially for those with progression within < 1 year.

Second Line Chemotherapy for Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Vinflunine and Beyond-A Comprehensive Review of the Current Literature

PURPOSE

We comprehensively reviewed current efforts and advances in the field of chemotherapeutic and biologically targeted treatment options after the failure of cisplatin based, first line regimens for urothelial carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE®, Central®, and meeting abstracts of ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) and ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) to identify original articles, reviews and retrospective analyses on second line treatment of urothelial carcinoma. Articles were included in analysis if they described prospective phase II/III studies or larger high quality retrospective studies of second line treatment of urothelial carcinoma.

RESULTS

Although considered a chemosensitive disease, most patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma relapse after cisplatin based first line treatment. Today none of the commonly used drugs, ie paclitaxel, carboplatin and/or gemcitabine, are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) for second line systemic treatment. In Europe vinflunine plus best supportive care is the only option approved by the EMA (European Medicines Agency) with moderate clinical efficacy. Responses to combined chemotherapy approaches are often better but associated with remarkable toxicity. In patients who respond well to first line treatment and, thus, are considered cisplatin sensitive readministration of a platinum based combination regimen may be an option. To date targeted therapies do not have a role in second line treatment of urothelial cancer. Immunotherapeutic strategies to target the PD-1/PD-L1 axis are emerging. In a recent phase I trial evaluating the PD-L1 targeted monoclonal antibody MPDL3280A a promising 43% response rate with good tolerability was achieved, which led to an immediate breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA. Combining chemotherapy with targeted agents, eg weekly paclitaxel and pazopanib, also shows promising activity in this prognostically poor treatment situation.

CONCLUSIONS

Response rates and survival are poor after second line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. To improve outcomes of salvage treatment novel biologically targeted drugs as monotherapy or as part of a combination with conventional cytostatics are urgently needed.