Real-world outcomes of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients (pts) treated with first or second-line immunotherapies (IO) in the United States (US).

person Marley Boyd The US Oncology Network, McKesson Specialty Health, Houston, TX info_outline Marley Boyd, Srinivas Annavarapu, Gurjyot K. Doshi, Kentaro Imai, Eric Sbar, James Luke Godwin, Haojie Li, Guru Sonpavde

Authors person Marley Boyd The US Oncology Network, McKesson Specialty Health, Houston, TX info_outline Marley Boyd, Srinivas Annavarapu, Gurjyot K. Doshi, Kentaro Imai, Eric Sbar, James Luke Godwin, Haojie Li, Guru Sonpavde Organizations The US Oncology Network, McKesson Specialty Health, Houston, TX, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA Abstract Disclosures Research Funding Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company Background: While clinical trials have affirmed benefit of IO for mUC, limited real-world evidence exists to describe the current treatment landscape and clinical outcomes. This study evaluated these trends in a network of community oncology practices, the US Oncology Network (USON). Methods: This was a retrospective study of adult mUC pts who initiated IO regardless of PD-L1 expression in the first- (1L cohort) or second-line (2L cohort) setting between 5/1/2016-1/31/2018. Using data from USON’s electronic heath record, descriptive and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to evaluate baseline characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. Results: Among the 254 pts in the 1L cohort, median (range) age at IO initiation was 74 (42, 90+), 71% were male, 77% were Caucasian, and 18.1% and 5.9% had ECOG performance status (PS) 2 and 3/4, respectively. Among the 179 pts in the 2L cohort, median (range) age at IO initiation was 71 (29, 90+), 76% were male, 76% were Caucasian and 20.7% and 2.2% had ECOG PS 2 and 3/4, respectively. Nearly all pts received IO monotherapy. Median (range) follow-up durations from IO initiation were 4.3 (0, 22; 1L cohort) and 3.6 (0, 19; 2L cohort) months (mo), during which time 39% (1L cohort) and 37% (2L cohort) of pts died. Median overall survival (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 9.9 (7.5, 15.7) mo for the 1L IO cohort and 8.3 (6.4, not reached) mo for the 2L IO cohort. Six-mo survival probabilities (95% CI) were 61.6% (54.5%, 67.9%; 1L cohort) and 60.7% (51.4%, 68.8%; 2L cohort). In total, 52.8% of 1L pts and 53.6% of 2L pts were alive and did not advance to next line of therapy, and 11% of 1L and 13% of 2L cohort pts advanced to the next line of therapy. Median (95% CI) treatment durations were 2.3 (1.9, 3.0) and 3.3 (2.7, 3.9) mos for the 1L and 2L cohorts, respectively. Six-mo ongoing treatment probabilities (95% CI) were 28.9% (23.3%, 34.7%; 1L cohort) and 34.0% (26.1%, 42.1%; 2L cohort). Conclusions: Outcomes of real-world mUC pts receiving IO were as expected, with majority of pts alive and a small minority receiving post-IO therapy. Future research should examine how pt and tumor (PD-L1 expression) characteristics influence treatment and outcomes.