Prognostic value of the lung immune prognosis index score for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic urinary tract carcinoma

Parent, Pauline; Auclin, Edouard; Patrikidou, Anna; Mezquita, Laura; Martínez Chanzá, Nieves; Dumont, Clement; Rodriguez-Vida, Alejo; Llacer, Casilda; Lozano, Rebeca; Ratta, Raffaele; Merseburger, Axel S.; Sternberg, Cora N.; Baciarello, Giulia; Colomba, Emeline; Fuerea, Alina; Besse, Benjamin; Loriot, Yohann; Lavaud, Pernelle

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041066

Prognostic value of the lung immune prognosis index score for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic urinary tract carcinoma

Citation

Parent P, Auclin E, Patrikidou A, Mezquita L, Martínez Chanzá N, Dumont C, et al. Prognostic value of the lung immune prognosis index score for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic urinary tract carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb 7;15(4):1066. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041066

Abstract

Few prognostic factors have been identified in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) was associated with clinical outcomes for ICIs in several tumor types. We aim to assess the value of the LIPI in patients with mUC treated with ICIs. A retrospective ICI cohort and a validation cohort (SAUL cohort) included, respectively, patients with mUC treated with ICI in 8 European centers (any line) and patients treated with atezolizumab in a second or further line. A chemotherapy-only cohort was also analyzed. The LIPI score was based on 2 factors, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR) > 3 and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal, and defined 3 prognostic groups. The association of LIPI with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed. In the ICI and SAUL cohorts, 137 and 541 patients were respectively analyzed. In the ICI cohort, mPFS and mOS were 3.6 mo (95% CI; 2.6-6.0) and 13.8 mo (95% CI; 11.5-23.2) whereas in the SAUL cohort the mPFS and mOS were 2.2 mo (95% CI; 2.1-2.3) and 8.7 mo (95% CI; 7.8-9.9) respectively. The LIPI classified the population of these cohorts in good (56%; 52%), intermediate (35%; 36%) and poor (9%; 12%) prognostic groups (values for the ICI and SAUL cohorts respectively). Poor LIPI was associated with a poorer OS in both cohorts: hazard ratio (HR) for the ICI cohort = 2.69 (95% CI; 1.24-5.84, p = 0.035); HR = 2. 89 for the SAUL cohort (CI 95%: 1.93-4.32, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found in the chemo cohort. The LIPI score allows to identify different subgroups in patients with good prognostis according to the Bellmunt score criteria, with a subset of patients with poorer outcomes having an mOS of 3.7 mo compared to the good and intermediate LIPI subgroups with mOS of 17.9 and 7.4 mo, respectively. The LIPI score was associated with survival in mUC patients treated by ICIs. Future prospective studies will be required to test the combination of Bellmunt score and the LIPI score as a more accurate prognosis tool.