Objectives: To examine patient and disease characteristics, toxicity, and clinical outcomes for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are rechallenged with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort, we included patients treated with ICI for aUC after having prior ICI treatment. Endpoints included the evaluation of radiographic response and disease control rates with first and second ICI courses, outcomes based on whether there was a change in ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1), and assessment of the reasons for ICI discontinuation. Results: We identified 25 patients with aUC from 9 institutions who received 2 separate ICI courses. ORR with first ICI and second ICI were 39% and 13%, respectively. Most patients discontinued first ICI due to progression (n = 19) or treatment-related toxicity (n = 4). Thirteen patients received non-ICI treatment between the first and second ICI, and 12 patients changed ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1) at rechallenge. Among 10 patients who changed ICI class, 8 (80%) had progressive disease as best response with second ICI, while among 12 patients re-treated with the same ICI class, only 3 (25%) had progressive disease as best response at the time of rechallenge. With second ICI, most patients discontinued treatment due to progression (n = 18) or patient preference (n = 2). Conclusions: A proportion of patients with aUC rechallenged with ICI-based regimens may achieve disease control, supporting clinical trials in that setting, especially with ICI-based combinations. Future studies are needed to validate our results and should also focus on identifying biomarkers predictive of benefit with ICI rechallenge.
Treatment Rechallenge With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Pinato D.;
2023-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: To examine patient and disease characteristics, toxicity, and clinical outcomes for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are rechallenged with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort, we included patients treated with ICI for aUC after having prior ICI treatment. Endpoints included the evaluation of radiographic response and disease control rates with first and second ICI courses, outcomes based on whether there was a change in ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1), and assessment of the reasons for ICI discontinuation. Results: We identified 25 patients with aUC from 9 institutions who received 2 separate ICI courses. ORR with first ICI and second ICI were 39% and 13%, respectively. Most patients discontinued first ICI due to progression (n = 19) or treatment-related toxicity (n = 4). Thirteen patients received non-ICI treatment between the first and second ICI, and 12 patients changed ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1) at rechallenge. Among 10 patients who changed ICI class, 8 (80%) had progressive disease as best response with second ICI, while among 12 patients re-treated with the same ICI class, only 3 (25%) had progressive disease as best response at the time of rechallenge. With second ICI, most patients discontinued treatment due to progression (n = 18) or patient preference (n = 2). Conclusions: A proportion of patients with aUC rechallenged with ICI-based regimens may achieve disease control, supporting clinical trials in that setting, especially with ICI-based combinations. Future studies are needed to validate our results and should also focus on identifying biomarkers predictive of benefit with ICI rechallenge.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
