Safety, Efficacy, and Biomarker Analysis of Toripalimab in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results from a Multicenter Phase II Trial POLARIS-03
- PMID: 34740921
- DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2210
Safety, Efficacy, and Biomarker Analysis of Toripalimab in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results from a Multicenter Phase II Trial POLARIS-03
Abstract
Purpose: Immunotherapy offers a second-line option for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who failed standard therapy, but the biomarkers for predicting response remain to be explored. This study aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and correlative biomarker of toripalimab in patients with previously treated mUC.
Patients and methods: Patients with mUC received toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W. Clinical response was assessed every 8 weeks by an independent review committee per RECIST v1.1. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and other biomarkers were evaluated.
Results: Among the intention-to-treat population (n = 151), 85% of the patients experienced treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) and 20% experienced grade 3 and above TRAE. The objective response rate (ORR) was 26% with a disease control rate (DCR) of 45%. The median duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were 19.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 13.9-not estimable], 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.6), and 14.4 months (95% CI, 9.3-23.1), respectively. Both PD-L1+ and TMB-high (10 mutations/Mb as the cutoff) patients had better ORR than PD-L1- patients (42% vs. 17%, P = 0.002) and TMB-low patients (48% vs. 22%, P = 0.014), respectively. The TMB-high group also showed better PFS (12.9 vs. 1.8 months, P < 0.001) and OS (not reached versus 10.0 months, P = 0.018) than the TMB-low group.
Conclusions: Toripalimab has demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in the second-line treatment of mUC with a manageable safety profile. PD-L1 expression and TMB were two independent biomarkers in the study.
©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.
References
-
- Mollica V, Rizzo A, Montironi R, Cheng L, Giunchi F, Schiavina R, et al. Current strategies and novel therapeutic approaches for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:1449.
-
- Galsky MD, Chen GJ, Oh WK, Bellmunt J, Roth BJ, Petrioli R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:406–10.
-
- von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT, Dogliotti L, Oliver T, Moore MJ, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3068–77.
-
- Bellmunt Jder Maase H, Mead GM, Skoneczna I, De Santis M, Daugaard G, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC intergroup study 30987. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1107–13.
-
- Oing C, Rink M, Oechsle K, Seidel C, von Amsberg G, Bokemeyer C. Second line chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: vinflunine and beyond-a comprehensive review of the current literature. J Urol. 2016;195:254–63.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
