1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Concurrent palliative radiation with pembrolizumab for platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma is associated with improved overall survival

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • We investigated the hypothesis that palliative radiation to patients treated with pembrolizumab exerts a favorable effect on survival in 235 platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients.

          • Overall survival from the initiation of pembrolizumab was significantly longer in patients who underwent concurrent palliative radiation with pembrolizumab than in both patients with palliative radiation before pembrolizumab and those without palliative radiation throughout the follow-up.

          • The result using propensity score matching still exhibited a longer overall survival in patients treated with concurrent palliative radiation with pembrolizumab than those without concurrent palliative radiation.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose

          Pembrolizumab has now become a standard of care in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), although the treatment effect of the drug substantially differs among individuals. Emerging evidence suggests that radiotherapy exerts a synergistic effect with PD-1 blockade. We sought to elucidate the survival outcomes in patients who underwent palliative radiation with the pembrolizumab treatment.

          Methods

          We retrospectively investigated our multi-institutional dataset of 235 platinum-refractory mUC patients treated with pembrolizumab as second-line treatment, collected from January 2018 and October 2021. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce biases by potential confounding factors for overall survival (OS).

          Results

          With a median follow-up of 6.8 months, the median OS from the initiation of pembrolizumab was 13 months in 235 patients. Palliative radiation was performed in 71 (30.2%) patients for whom the median radiation dose and fraction were 30 Gy and 10 fractions, respectively. Irradiated sites were bone in 24 (33.8%), lymph node in 17 (23.9%), lung in 3 (4.2%), brain in 8 (11.3%), and other sites in 19 (26.8%). OS from the initiation of pembrolizumab was significantly longer in patients who underwent concurrent palliative radiation with pembrolizumab (39 patients: median OS: 21 months) than in both patients with palliative radiation before pembrolizumab (32 patients: median OS: 9 months) (p = 0.001) and those without palliative radiation throughout the follow-up (164 patients: median OS: 13 months) (p = 0.019). After the propensity-score matching by putative confounding factors, longer OS in patients treated with concurrent palliative radiation with pembrolizumab (n = 36) was still observed compared to patients without the concurrent palliative radiation (n = 36) in the pair matched cohort (median OS of 29 and 13 months, respectively, p = 0.033).

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that the concurrent administration of palliative radiation with pembrolizumab offers a favorable effect on OS in platinum-refractory mUC patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

            New England Journal of Medicine, 376(11), 1015-1026
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics

              Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden—a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline—iRECIST—was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
                Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
                Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2405-6308
                10 December 2022
                March 2023
                10 December 2022
                : 39
                : 100558
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki City, Osaka 569-8686, Japan
                [b ]Departmentof Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8461, Japan
                [c ]Department of Urology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0023, Japan
                [d ]Department of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake City, Aichi 470-1192, Japan
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding authors at: Department of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Unit Leader, Translational Research Program, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Daigaku-machi 2-7, Takatsuki City 569-8686, Japan (K. Komura). Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8461, Japan (T. Kimura). kazumasa.komura@ 123456ompu.ac.jp tkimura0809@ 123456gmail.com
                [#]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                S2405-6308(22)00116-1 100558
                10.1016/j.ctro.2022.12.001
                9762181
                98bf05ce-e6d1-40f8-a741-c7ec260ac685
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 August 2022
                : 2 December 2022
                : 2 December 2022
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article