# Immunotherapy-Based Combinations in First-Line Urothelial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis

## TL;DR

This study compares immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combinations for treating urothelial cancer, finding that one combination (Pembrolizumab + EV) improves survival and delays disease progression more than others.

## Contribution

The study provides new evidence from individual patient data meta-analysis that Pembrolizumab + EV is more effective than other immunochemotherapy combinations in advanced urothelial cancer.

## Key findings

- Pembrolizumab + EV showed significantly better overall survival (OS) compared to other immunochemotherapy combinations.
- The combination also improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to avelumab and other regimens.
- Results suggest that immunochemotherapy is superior to platinum-based chemotherapy alone in advanced urothelial cancer.

## Abstract

Introduction. Platinum-based chemotherapy represents the standard of care (SoC) for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The benefit of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to platinum-based chemotherapy was recently investigated. We performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of phase 3 clinical trials comparing ICI-based treatments. Methods. A systematic literature search was conducted on the MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases. The results were filtered by including only reports on clinical trials or randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2023, including 3047 patients from four clinical trials (EV302, CHECKMATE-901, IMVIGOR130, KEYNOTE-361). An IPD meta-analysis was performed by reconstructing IPD from Kaplan–Meier curves. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of Pembrolizumab + EV compared to experimental arms of the other trials of immunotherapy + chemotherapy. Results. The OS analysis showed an advantage of IPD from EV302 vs. all the other trials. For EV302 vs. KEYNOTE-361, the HR was 0.51; for EV302 vs. IMVIGOR130, the HR was 0.47; and for EV302 vs. CHECKMATE-901, the HR was 0.66 (CI 95% 0.51–0.85). In the PFS analysis, the EV302 arm showed a statistically significant advantage compared to CHECKMATE-901 (HR 0.66) and versus IMVIGOR130 (HR 0.51). Limitations: By using reconstructed IPD curves, it was not possible to adjust patient-level covariates, and the heterogeneity of the included population may have affected the pooled results. Conclusions: The EV302 experimental arm showed better OS and PFS when compared to the other immunochemotherapy combinations. An immunochemotherapy combination strategy at the beginning of treatment in mUC seems to be superior in terms of OS and PFS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone. EV–Pembrolizumab resulted to have better outcomes compared to avelumab, rather than other immunochemotherapy combinations. However, given the heterogeneity of these studies, a longer follow up and prospective trials are needed to confirm these data.