BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated prolonged survival associated with niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy, compared with placebo, for patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, data are limited on real-world 1LM niraparib monotherapy use, particularly as switch 1LM, following first-line (1L) combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. This real-world study aimed to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with OC receiving 1LM niraparib monotherapy following 1L combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from a US-based nationwide database of deidentified, electronic health record-derived data. Patients diagnosed with OC during the study period (1 January 2011-30 November 2022, inclusive) were eligible if they received 1L chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment followed by 1LM niraparib monotherapy, initiated between 1 January 2017 (inclusive) and 2 September 2022. Patients were followed from index date (initiation of niraparib 1LM) until the first occurrence of death, end of follow-up, or end of study. Clinical outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate TTD, TTNT, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Among 93 patients selected, median age at index was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60-72 years). Most patients had BRCA wild-type/homologous recombination (HR)-proficient or BRCA wild-type/HR unknown disease (75.3%). In all, 18 (19.4%) patients had HR-deficient disease. Five (5.4%) patients had unknown test results for both BRCA and HR deficiency status. Median follow-up time was 16.3 months (IQR 8.7-25.4 months), and median time from end of 1L therapy to 1LM initiation was 35.0 days (IQR 25.0-53.9 days). Median TTD was 9.3 months (95% CI 6.1-11.3 months). Median TTNT was 12.9 months (95% CI 11.5-19.0 months).
CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study provided insights into switch maintenance with 1LM niraparib monotherapy, which may be a viable treatment option for patients with advanced OC.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, switch maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy has been a standard of care. However, the appropriate number of systemic chemotherapy cycles against advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma (UC) remains unclear. This study assessed the survival outcomes of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy according to treatment cycles in patients with metastatic disease.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with metastatic bladder and upper urinary tract cancer who received platinum-based combination therapy. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.
RESULTS: Of 179 patients, 47 (26.3%) were women, and 73 (40.8%) had upper urinary tract cancer. Furthermore, 47 (26.3%) who were not eligible for cisplatin received carboplatin. The median number of treatment cycles was 3 (range=1-14 cycles). The rates of progressive disease within two cycles, from two to four cycles, and from four to six cycles were 18.4%, 19.2%, and 30.6%, respectively. The median OS of patients with 2, 3, 4, 5-6, and ≥7 treatment cycles were 8.6, 14.3, 21.3, 24.4, and 26.1 months, respectively. The OS did not significantly differ between patients receiving four treatment cycles and those receiving ≥5 treatment cycles. In patients with disease control (complete or partial response or stable disease) receiving ≥4 treatment cycles, there was no significant difference in terms of OS between patients receiving four cycles and those receiving six cycles.
CONCLUSIONS: Four cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy can be effective in patients with metastatic UC.

Maintenance therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has changed the treatment paradigm of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial established avelumab, one of several ICIs in use today, as a life-prolonging maintenance therapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Platinum-based chemotherapy is most often used in the first-line treatment of mUC, and while response rates approach about 50%, disease control is usually short-lived upon completion of the standard three to six cycles of chemotherapy. Much progress has been made in recent years in the second-line space and beyond with the use of ICIs, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in eligible patients at the time of disease progression post-platinum-based chemotherapy. However, many patients with progressive mUC after first-line chemotherapy suffer from rapid progression of disease, treatment toxicity with subsequent lines of therapy, and a limited life expectancy. Until the results of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial were presented in 2020, there were no maintenance strategies proven to be beneficial over best supportive care after disease control is achieved with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. To date, standard of care frontline treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer remains to be four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance avelumab. This review summarizes the current evidence available on maintenance therapies in mUC, as well as several highly anticipated clinical trials that we hope will result in further progress in the management of this aggressive cancer and improve patient outcomes.

To investigate the correlation between tumor size changes during the initial 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy and tumor shrinkage following 2 additional cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who experienced disease control after initial chemotherapy.
We retrospectively reviewed 128 patients with aUC who received first-line chemotherapy. We analyzed 51 patients with disease control (stable disease or better) at the end of the fourth cycle. Of these, 47 patients received 1 to 2 additional cycles of chemotherapy, whereas the remaining patients underwent observation. For patients who received additional chemotherapy, the change in tumor size after additional chemotherapy (cycles 5-6) was defined as \"no shrinkage\" (tumor growth), \"minor shrinkage\" (no tumor growth or ≤10% reduction in tumor size), or \"shrinkage\" (>10% reduction in tumor size). Then, we investigated the relationship between the rate of tumor size change during the initial 4 cycles and that after additional chemotherapy.
Of the patients who received additional chemotherapy, the change in tumor size was categorized as no shrinkage in 21 patients (44.7%), minor shrinkage in 18 patients (38.3%), and shrinkage in 8 patients (17%). Regarding predictors of tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy, the rate of tumor size change between the cycles 3 and 4 (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.642) was correlated with the trend of the tumor shrinkage (P = 0.009) and the likelihood of beneficial tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy (minor shrinkage + shrinkage; P = 0.02). However, the change in tumor size between cycles 1 and 2, cycles 1 and 4, or cycles 3 and 4 was not satisfactorily predictive of further tumor shrinkage because of substantial overlaps of the tumor size changes.
Only a small subset of patients would have substantial tumor shrinkage by additional cycles after successful induction of 4 cycle chemotherapy. Tumor size dynamics during the initial 4 cycles of chemotherapy displayed limited ability to predict the subset of patients with further tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy. Therefore, it might be better to consider switch maintenance immunotherapy for patients who experience disease control after the fourth cycle of first-line chemotherapy.

Management of first-line advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) has consisted during the past three decades in the administration of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by observation. Despite moderate to high response rates to first-line treatment, most patients will relapse shortly after and the outcomes with subsequent therapies are poor with 5-year overall survival rates of 5% in the pre-immunotherapy era. Nonetheless, recent therapeutic developments including the paradigm shift of first-line maintenance therapy with avelumab after response or stabilization on platinum-based chemotherapy, along with the incorporation of new drug classes in further lines of treatment such as antibody drug-conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors have reshaped the field leading to better outcomes in this patient population. This article reviews the current state of the art with an overview on UC management, recent advances, and the upcoming strategies currently in development in advanced UC with an insight into the biology of this disease.

UNASSIGNED: Induction with four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was the standard of care for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) until the approval of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in the first-line setting. Switch maintenance therapy has shown promise in improving survival by exposing patients to novel, non-cross-resistant agents earlier in their treatment course.
UNASSIGNED: We performed this open-label, three-arm, randomized phase II study (NCT02684461) to evaluate three sequences of consolidation with pembrolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in patients without progressive disease post induction chemotherapy. Consolidation was either sequential with pembrolizumab for four cycles followed by nab-paclitaxel for four cycles (P→A), nab-paclitaxel followed by pembrolizumab (A→P), or concurrent nab-paclitaxel and pembrolizumab for four cycles (AP).
UNASSIGNED: Twenty patients were randomized before the study was closed early due to the approval of first-line checkpoint inhibitors. We found that consolidation is feasible and well tolerated, with 30% of patients experiencing grade 3 toxicity. The median progression-free survival and OS in months (95% CI) in P→A were 10.1 (1.5-NR), 27.6 (1.7-NR); 8.4 (1.2-9.0), 12.7 (4.4-NR) in A→P; and 10.2 (5.1-NR), NR. Quality of life as measured by FACT-L improved in the majority of patients during the course of the study.
UNASSIGNED: Sequential and concurrent consolidation regimens are well tolerated and have encouraging overall survival in patients with metastatic NSCLC.

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management.

Switch maintenance, or using alternative therapeutic agents that were not administered during a prior course of cancer treatment, has emerged as an active clinical research and regulatory agency-approvable path in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) drug-development sequence. To better inform the design of therapeutic radiopharmaceutical trials, we reviewed academic scholarship discussing the clinical use of maintenance approaches to cancer treatment. Women with advanced-stage primary platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma and their courses of treatment provide context for our discussion. Twenty-four (10%) out of 244 trials for women with ovarian carcinoma fit our search terms for maintenance trials. Five (2%) trials studied radiopharmaceuticals as switch maintenance. In our opinion, radiopharmaceutical switch maintenance merits further testing in prospective trials for women with advanced-stage primary platinum recurrent or refractory ovarian carcinoma.

暂无摘要。

Four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy are currently recommended for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several studies have assessed the benefit of maintenance therapy following platinum-based first-line therapy, to improve disease control, and thus, progression-free and overall survival with minimal toxicity and maintenance or improvement of quality of life of patients. We review here clinical trials evaluating continuation maintenance therapy or switch maintenance therapy in locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, to highlight the achievements made and critical issues faced. Based on the available results and limitations of these trials, maintenance therapy should be considered a good treatment strategy for a limited subgroup of patients. Maintenance therapy should be personalised according to the characteristics of patients and their disease, taking into account the data available for the agents used in this setting.