Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  421 476 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 421 476 Next Page
Page Background

that may change during several disease stages and

sequential therapies. To better understand PD-L1 dynamics,

future studies will focus on fresh biopsies from metastatic

lesions sequentially obtained during treatment with

ICIs.

In clinical practice, tools are needed to select patients for

immune checkpoint blockade. In particular, stratification

for combination strategies is required, as a number of

patients have already benefited frommonotherapy andmay

not benefit from an additional therapy with regard to

antitumor effect and higher risk of toxicity. Alternative tools

to stratify patients may include genomic subtype, interfer-

on-

g

gene expression signature, chemokine expression

signature, and mutational load. In addition, positron

emission tomography (PET) using

89

Zr-labeled ICIs may

be valuable, as this noninvasive technique enables drug

uptake measurements in tumors, thereby revealing inter-

tumor heterogeneity

[45]

. Future studies will showwhether

PET using

89

Zr-labeled ICIs may be useful to select patients

for treatment with ICIs.

3.4.4.

Safety

In UCC and RCC, anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab

and nivolumab, respectively, was associated not only with

fewer AEs

[23,26]

, but also with better quality of life than

the comparator treatment, that is, chemotherapy and

everolimus, respectively

[46,47]

. However, ipilimumab

was associated with a high risk of grade 3–4 toxicity in

approximately 40% of mCRPC patients

[28] ,

which is

specifically associated with inhibition of CTLA-4 signaling.

Although blockade of PD-1 and PD-L1 signaling is associat-

ed with less toxicity, awareness and expertise for immune-

related toxicity such as colitis, endocrinopathies (eg,

hypothyroidism, type 1 diabetes), nephritis, and pneumo-

nitis are required as immune-related toxicities can develop

rapidly and severely, and, although rare, can even be fatal. In

addition, immune-related toxicities can even develop after

discontinuation of treatment. Early recognition and treat-

ment are necessary, as these toxicities can be treated

adequately with immune-suppressive agents, including

high-dose steroids, tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockers

(eg, infliximab), and, in case of endocrinopathies, hormone

replacement therapy

[48] .

Although combination strategies

with ICIs may enhance efficacy, they are also associated

with a higher risk of toxicity.

In rare cases, rapid disease progression is observed after

the initiation of ICIs, indicating that ICIs may be harmful for

some patients. Hyperprogressive disease during ICIs devel-

ops independently of tumor histology and is associated with

a poorer OS. So far, no predictive markers for hyperpro-

gressive disease have been identified

[49]

.

For optimal patient selection and counseling, there is a

need for tools to identify patients with a high risk of severe

toxicity. Since antitumor activity of ICIs has also been

observed at low dosages

[25]

and may even last after early

discontinuation of treatment, further optimization of dosage

and administration schedules is required, potentially

reducing toxicity and costs. To reduce the economic burden

of ICIs, future studies should focus on the optimal treatment

duration, value of treatment beyond disease progression

[50]

, and development of predictive tools for both tumor

response and toxicity.

3.4.5.

Strengths and limitations of review

The strengths of this review are the prespecified and

systematic literature search, selecting only published RCTs.

As a result, only high-quality studies were selected.

However, an important limitation is the lack of unpublished

results from other phase 3 studies. To overcome this

limitation, potential landmark studies, which are not

published yet, are mentioned in the Discussion section. In

addition, early phase 1 and 2 studies, including those

potentially leading to FDA approval, and phase 3 studies are

mentioned in the Discussion section and presented in

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

4.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ICIs show superior efficacy and safety

outcomes compared with conventional second-line treat-

ment in patients with advanced UCC and RCC. To date,

treatment paradigms with ICIs have not shown clinical

benefit in mCRPC patients. Ongoing studies, also assessing

novel combination strategies with ICIs, may further

enhance efficacy in earlier treatment lines and disease

stages of urological cancers. Since PD-L1 expression thus far

seems to be inconclusive as a predictive marker, future

research needs to focus on alternative markers.

Author contributions

: Ronald de Wit had full access to all the data in the

study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy

of the data analysis.

Study concept and design:

Rijnders, van der Veldt.

Acquisition of data:

Rijnders, van der Veldt.

Analysis and interpretation of data:

Boormans, Lolkema, Rijnders, van der

Veldt, de Wit.

Drafting of the manuscript:

Lolkema, Rijnders, van der Veldt, de Wit.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:

Boormans, Lolkema, van der Veldt, de Wit.

Statistical analysis:

None.

Obtaining funding:

None.

Administrative, technical, or material support:

None.

Supervision:

van der Veldt, de Wit.

Other:

None.

Financial disclosures:

Ronald de Wit certifies that all conflicts of interest,

including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations

relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript

(eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria,

stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed,

received, or pending), are the following: R. de Wit: advisory board fees

Merck and Roche. J.L. Boormans: advisory board fees MSD, Janssen

Nederland, and Roche. M.P.J. Lolkema: research funding Astellas, Johnson &

Johnson, and Sanofi. A.A.M. van der Veldt: advisory board fees BMS, Ipsen,

and Pfizer.

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:

None.

Acknowledgments:

The authors would like to thank Gerdien B. de Jonge,

biomedical information specialist, Medical Library, Erasmus MC, for

support in the literature searching process.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 4 1 1 – 4 2 3

421