Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
Comparison of the efficacy of enfortumab vedotin between patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were treated with avelumab or pembrolizumab: real-world data from a multi-institutional study in Japan.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hirasawa Yosuke, Adachi Takahiro, Hashimoto Takeshi, Fukuokaya Wataru, Koike Yuhei, Yata Yuji, Komura Kazumasa, Uchimoto Taizo, Tsujino Takuya, Nishimura Kazuki, Takahara Kiyoshi, Saruta Masanobu, Fujita Kazutoshi, Hashimoto Mamoru, Uemura Hirotsugu, Shiroki Ryoichi, Azuma Takashi, Kimura Takahiro, Ohno Yoshio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate approved for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) refractory to prior treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, the difference in efficacy of EV after each ICIs and prognostic factors are not well known. We aimed to compare the efficacy of EV in patients with metastatic UC who were treated with avelumab or pembrolizumab and to identify the prognostic factors.
METHODS: The records of 100 patients with advanced metastatic UC who received EV after the administration of either avelumab or pembrolizumab were retrospectively collected from five academic hospitals in Japan.
RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 6.7 months. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the EV after avelumab/pembrolizumab group were not reached/14.7 months (p = 0.17) and 10.4/5.2 months (p = 0.039), respectively. The objective response rates (ORR) were 66.6% and 46.8% in EV after avelumab and EV after pembrolizumab groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Multivariate analysis identified histological variants, liver metastasis, low serum albumin levels, and high serum CRP level as significant poor prognostic factors. The median OS and PFS of cachexia patients with both low serum albumin levels and high serum CRP levels were 6.0 months and 0.93 months, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PFS was superior in patients treated with EV after avelumab to EV after pembrolizumab. However, OS showed no significant difference between the two groups. Because the prognosis of patients with cachexia is extremely poor, the initiation of EV should be discussed in these patients.
METHODS: The records of 100 patients with advanced metastatic UC who received EV after the administration of either avelumab or pembrolizumab were retrospectively collected from five academic hospitals in Japan.
RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 6.7 months. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the EV after avelumab/pembrolizumab group were not reached/14.7 months (p = 0.17) and 10.4/5.2 months (p = 0.039), respectively. The objective response rates (ORR) were 66.6% and 46.8% in EV after avelumab and EV after pembrolizumab groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Multivariate analysis identified histological variants, liver metastasis, low serum albumin levels, and high serum CRP level as significant poor prognostic factors. The median OS and PFS of cachexia patients with both low serum albumin levels and high serum CRP levels were 6.0 months and 0.93 months, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PFS was superior in patients treated with EV after avelumab to EV after pembrolizumab. However, OS showed no significant difference between the two groups. Because the prognosis of patients with cachexia is extremely poor, the initiation of EV should be discussed in these patients.