Treatment patterns among patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma following discontinuation of PD1/L1 inhibitor therapy

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 39; no. 6_suppl; p. 414
• Main Authors: Morgans, Alicia K., Grewal, Simrun Kaur, Hepp, Zsolt, Fuldeore, Rupali, Odak, Shardul, Macahilig, Cynthia, Shillington, Alicia C., Sonpavde, Guru
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 20.02.2021
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.6_suppl.414

Abstract only 414 Background: There are a lack of published real-world data on treatment patterns for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) previously treated with programmed death 1/ligand 1 inhibitor (PD-1/L1i) therapy. The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical characteristics and treatments among patients with la/mUC following discontinuation of first-line (1L) or second-line (2L) PD-1/L1i therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review at 26 geographically diverse clinical sites in the US. Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed urothelial carcinoma and radiographic evidence of metastatic or locally advanced disease were identified. Included patients had initiated and subsequently discontinued PD-1/L1i therapy in the 1L or 2L setting for la/mUC between May 15, 2016-July 31, 2018. All patients had follow-up through October 31, 2019. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the 300 patients included in the chart review, 198 (66%) received PD-1/L1i therapy as 1L and 102 (34%) as 2L therapy. Mean (SD) age at la/mUC diagnosis was 69.4 (8.7) years, and a majority of patients were male (66.0%) and White (74.7%). Consistent with age, most patients (82.7%) had comorbidities at la/mUC diagnosis; 39.7% hypertension, 23.7% coronary artery disease, 17.7% pulmonary disease, and 9.3% renal disease. At initiation of therapy, a higher proportion of patients who received 1L PD-1/L1i therapy had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more than patients who received 2L PD-1/L1i therapy (36.8% vs 22.5%, respectively). Following discontinuation of PD-1/L1i therapy, 34% (n = 68) received subsequent therapy in 2L and 29% (n = 30) in third-line (3L). The most common subsequent therapies in 2L were gemcitabine monotherapy (24%), gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin (22%), PD-1/L1i therapy (22%), and taxane monotherapy (19%). The most common subsequent therapies received in 3L were taxane monotherapy (50%), pemetrexed (17%), and PD-1/L1i therapy (16%). Overall, switching from one PD-1/L1i therapy to another distinct PD-1/L1i therapy occurred in approximately 20% of patients, with “better efficacy/survival” noted by treatment teams as the most common reason for switching therapy among this subgroup. Conclusions: In this real-world case series, only a minority of patients with la/mUC who discontinued PD-1/L1i therapy received subsequent therapy. Among those that did, no clear standard of care was observed and approximately one-fifth of patients were treated with a second PD-1/L1i therapy after the first failed to control disease. Collectively, the data highlight significant unmet need for patients with la/mUC who discontinue PD-1/L1i therapy.