scholarly journals Update on the Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nedal Bukhari ◽  
Humaid O. Al-Shamsi ◽  
Faisal Azam
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Unfit Patients ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
First Line Treatment

Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has been the standard of care in the first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Treatment of metastatic disease following progression on platinum-based regimens has evolved significantly in the last few years. Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine how best to use and sequence these treatments. In this minireview, we will review current first-line treatment options in both cisplatin fit and cisplatin unfit patients and advances in first- and second-line treatments including chemotherapy and immunotherapy. This review reports key findings from the clinical trials especially highlighting the importance of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of bladder/urothelial carcinomas.

Clinical Outcomes of Three or More Courses of First-line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 459-461
Author(s):  
SHOHEI KAWAGUCHI ◽  
KOUJI IZUMI ◽  
RENATO NAITO ◽  
SUGURU KADOMOTO ◽  
HIROAKI IWAMOTO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Focal Therapy ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Line Drug ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background/Aim: The current standard of care for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) is platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been reported to be effective for UC. Knowing whether immunotherapy or chemotherapy is suitable as first-line treatment is beneficial for patients. A retrospective study was conducted on the clinical outcomes of Japanese patients who received three or more courses of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic UC to assess the outcome of conventional treatments in real clinical situation. Patients and Methods: Patients who received first-line chemotherapy between August 2009 and December 2019 were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: The median PFS and OS were 7.1 and 27.1 months, respectively, for patients with no disease progression at the end of three courses. Of 28 patients, 25 (89.3%) received second-line drug therapy and 10 (35.7%) received focal therapy for disease control. Patients with focal therapy had significantly longer OS than those without focal therapy (p=0.019, log-rank test). Conclusion: OS of metastatic UC at our Institution is relatively long, suggesting that aggressive second-line drug therapy and focal therapy may have contributed to such result.

scholarly journals Clinical evidence for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Current paradigms and emerging treatment options

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 102072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Koufopoulou ◽  
Paulo A.P. Miranda ◽  
Paulina Kazmierska ◽  
Sohan Deshpande ◽  
Priyanka Gaitonde
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy in the United States.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 93-93
Author(s):  
Yizhen Lai ◽  
Yichen Zhong ◽  
Haojie Li ◽  
Karl Patterson ◽  
Oliver Hale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Us ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

93 Background: Pembrolizumab is indicated as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. This study aims to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine in this setting from the US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed to measure the costs and effectiveness over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount of 3%. Clinical outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival, safety outcomes and time on treatment were modeled using data from the KEYNOTE-052 clinical trial for pembrolizumab and four clinical trials for carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Because clinical trials directly comparing these treatment strategies are not available, a simulation treatment comparison and a network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate comparative efficacy. Quality of life data extracted from EQ-5D questionnaires administered in KEYNOTE-052 were used to estimate utility, while cost data were estimated using US pricing lists and real-world data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Pembrolizumab was also compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in the scenario analyses. Results: Pembrolizumab was associated with a survival gain of 2.47 years and 1.90 quality adjusted life years (QALY), an incremental cost of $155,238, and an incremental cost per QALY gained of $81,493 versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Results were most sensitive to the time horizon, discount rate, pembrolizumab dosing intensity and OS hazard ratio. Pembrolizumab had 87% or 100% probability of being cost-effective vs. chemotherapy at a $100,000 or $150,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, respectively. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab appears cost-effective versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible and PD-L1 positive mUC patients in the US. The comparison of pembrolizumab with gemcitabine monotherapy yields similar conclusions.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

scholarly journals First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 470
Author(s):  
Marta Martín-Richard ◽  
Maria Tobeña
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Line Treatment

Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document