TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of Performance Status on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
AU - Kawada, Tatsushi
AU - Yanagisawa, Takafumi
AU - Mostafaei, Hadi
AU - Sari Motlagh, Reza
AU - Quhal, Fahad
AU - Rajwa, Pawel
AU - Laukhtina, Ekaterina
AU - von Deimling, Markus
AU - Bianchi, Alberto
AU - Majdoub, Mohammed
AU - Pallauf, Maximilian
AU - Pradere, Benjamin
AU - Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun
AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I
AU - Araki, Motoo
AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F
N1 - Pallauf: Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, University Hospital Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Context: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in the management of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). However, its performance in aUC patients with poor performance status (PS) remains unknown.Objective: We aimed to assess the impact of patients' performance status on the onco-logic outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs.Evidence acquisition: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception until July 2022 to identify studies assessing the association between the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS and the oncologic outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in randomised (RCTs) and nonrandomised (NRCTs) control studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The outcomes of our interests were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR).Evidence synthesis: Overall, six RCTs comprising 5428 patients and 32 NRCTs comprising 6069 patients were included. The meta-analysis of the RCTs revealed that patients with ECOG PS = 0 and PS >= 1 had a trend towards better OS with ICIs compared with those treated with chemotherapy (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.04, and HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.53-1.03, respectively). There was no significant difference in terms of response to ICIs between patients with poor and good PS (I2 = 0%, p = 0.46). The meta-analysis of the NRCTs revealed that patients with PS >2 had signif-icantly worse OS than those with PS <2 (pooled HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 2.00-3.17), as well as worse CSS (pooled HR: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.90-5.91), PFS (pooled HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.67-5.01), and ORR (pooled odds ratio: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.82). Similarly, patients with PS >1 had significantly worse oncologic outcomes than those with PS = 0.Conclusions: In the NRCTs, poor PS was correlated with worse oncologic outcomes in aUC patients treated with ICIs. In the RCTs, ICIs performed better than chemotherapy across all PS categories. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity across the studies and patient populations. More RCTs including poor PS are needed to assess the impact of PS on ICI therapy outcomes.Patient summary: Immune therapy for patients with urothelial carcinoma should not be restricted on the grounds of performance status. However, patients with poor perfor-mance status should be considered for other factors such as life expectancy and comorbidities.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
AB - Context: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in the management of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). However, its performance in aUC patients with poor performance status (PS) remains unknown.Objective: We aimed to assess the impact of patients' performance status on the onco-logic outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs.Evidence acquisition: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception until July 2022 to identify studies assessing the association between the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS and the oncologic outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in randomised (RCTs) and nonrandomised (NRCTs) control studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The outcomes of our interests were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR).Evidence synthesis: Overall, six RCTs comprising 5428 patients and 32 NRCTs comprising 6069 patients were included. The meta-analysis of the RCTs revealed that patients with ECOG PS = 0 and PS >= 1 had a trend towards better OS with ICIs compared with those treated with chemotherapy (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.04, and HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.53-1.03, respectively). There was no significant difference in terms of response to ICIs between patients with poor and good PS (I2 = 0%, p = 0.46). The meta-analysis of the NRCTs revealed that patients with PS >2 had signif-icantly worse OS than those with PS <2 (pooled HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 2.00-3.17), as well as worse CSS (pooled HR: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.90-5.91), PFS (pooled HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.67-5.01), and ORR (pooled odds ratio: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.82). Similarly, patients with PS >1 had significantly worse oncologic outcomes than those with PS = 0.Conclusions: In the NRCTs, poor PS was correlated with worse oncologic outcomes in aUC patients treated with ICIs. In the RCTs, ICIs performed better than chemotherapy across all PS categories. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity across the studies and patient populations. More RCTs including poor PS are needed to assess the impact of PS on ICI therapy outcomes.Patient summary: Immune therapy for patients with urothelial carcinoma should not be restricted on the grounds of performance status. However, patients with poor perfor-mance status should be considered for other factors such as life expectancy and comorbidities.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
KW - CISPLATIN-INELIGIBLE PATIENTS
KW - OPEN-LABEL
KW - SINGLE-ARM
KW - PEMBROLIZUMAB
KW - CANCER
KW - MULTICENTER
KW - CHEMOTHERAPY
KW - ATEZOLIZUMAB
KW - THERAPY
KW - SURVIVAL
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.019
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.019
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36774273
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 9
SP - 264
EP - 274
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 2
ER -