Rethinking prognostic factors in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the immune checkpoint blockade era: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in daily clinical practice. Knowledge about the influence of baseline clinical and analytical factors on therapy outcomes is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 119 previously treated or untreated mUC patients under anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in a real-world scenario. The objectives of this study were to confirm the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy and to identify pretreatment factors influencing therapy outcomes. In addition, an independent prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.4-10.4], median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.80 months (95% CI, 2.4-3.4), disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (95% CI, 31-49), and overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (95% CI, 15-31). Presence of peritoneal metastases was associated with poor OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.40, 95% CI, 1.08-5.33; P = 0.03]. Use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.02; P = 0.02) and PFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.09; P = 0.005), and lower DCR (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.17-0.89; P = 0.03) and ORR (OR = 0.18, 95% CI, 0.02-1.60; P = 0.002). The three risk category prognostic model developed included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PPI use, albumin level, presence of liver metastases, and presence of peritoneal metastases variables and was associated with higher risk of death (HR = 3.00, 95% CI, 1.97-4.56; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy as a safe and effective treatment option in daily clinical practice for mUC patients. It also describes the presence of peritoneal metastases as an independent prognostic factor for OS and underlines the association between PPI use and worse therapeutic outcomes. Finally, it proposes a new easy-to-use risk-assessment model for OS prediction.

A phase II trial of erlotinib as maintenance treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a Galician Lung Cancer Group (GGCP) study.

PURPOSE: This single arm, phase II study aims to evaluate the role of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine-kinase inhibitor erlotinib as maintenance therapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) in unresectable locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage IIIA o dry IIIB NSCLC with no evidence of tumor progression after receiving a standard cCRT regimen with curative intent were included. Oral erlotinib 150 mg/day was administered within 4-6 weeks after the end of the cCRT for a maximum of 6 months if no disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. Primary end point was the progression-free rate (PFR) at 6 months. Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled and received maintenance treatment with erlotinib [average: 4.5 months (95 % CI 4.0-5.0)]. PFR at 6 months was 63.5 % (41/66). With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95 % CI 13.5-37.1), the median TTP was 9.9 months (95 % CI 6.2-12.1), and the median OS was 24.0 months (95 % CI 17.3-48.6). Most common adverse events (AEs) related to erlotinib were rash (78.8 %; 16.7 % grade 3), diarrhea (28.8 %; 1.5 % grade 3), fatigue (15.2 %; 1.5 % grade 3), anorexia (7.6 %; 1.5 % grade 3) and vomiting (4.6 %; none grade 3). Five patients (7.6 %) were withdrawn due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib as maintenance therapy is an active treatment after cCRT in unselected patients with stage III NSCLC, reaching a 6-month PFR of 63.5 % and a median OS of 24 months. The safety profile of maintenance erlotinib was as expected and manageable.

Sequential dose-dense paclitaxel followed by topotecan in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Poor survival rates in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients prompted us to evaluate a sequential dose-dense schedule of paclitaxel followed by topotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with previously untreated, extensive-stage SCLC received three cycles of paclitaxel 250 mg/m(2) over 3 h every 14 days followed by three cycles of topotecan 2.5 mg/m(2) for 5 days every 21 days. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given after every cycle. Patients progressing at any time and those not achieving complete response (CR) subsequently received four cycles of standard-dose etoposide-cisplatin. RESULTS: A total of 118 cycles of paclitaxel were administered with minimal hematological toxicity. Grade 2/3 peripheral neuropathy was observed in 21% of patients. Response rate to paclitaxel was 48.8%, and 25.6% had stable disease (SD). Thirty-two patients achieving SD or response to paclitaxel subsequently received a total of 90 topotecan cycles. Topotecan-related toxicities included febrile neutropenia in 15.6% of patients with one toxic death, grade 3/4 anemia in 25% of patients and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 31.3%. Non-hematological toxicities were mild. At completion of sequential paclitaxel-topotecan treatment the overall response rate was 55.8% (22 partial response, two CRs). Median survival for all patients was 10.5 months and median progression-free survival was 8.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential treatment with dose-dense paclitaxel followed by topotecan is feasible despite significant hematological toxicity during topotecan treatment. This schedule is an active regimen in extensive-stage SCLC and merits further investigation.