Powles, ThomasDuran, Ignaciovan-der-Heijden, Michiel SLoriot, YohannVogelzang, Nicholas JDe-Giorgi, UgoOudard, StephaneRetz, Margitta MCastellano, DanielBamias, AristotelisFlechon, AudeGravis, GwenaëlleHussain, SyedTakano, ToshimiLeng, NingKadel, Edward EBanchereau, RomainHegde, Priti SMariathasan, SanjeevCui, NaShen, XiaodongDerleth, Christina LGreen, Marjorie CRavaud, Alain2023-01-252023-01-252017-12-18Powles T, Durán I, van der Heijden MS, Loriot Y, Vogelzang NJ, De Giorgi U, et al. Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018 Feb 24;391(10122):748-757.http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11939Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population. We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6-15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4-12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63-1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6-13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26-1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients). Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting.enAntibodies, MonoclonalAgedAntineoplastic AgentsDocetaxelMiddle AgedTaxoidsUrologic NeoplasmsAdultAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCarcinomaFemaleHumansMalePaclitaxelTreatment OutcomeVinblastineresearch article29268948Restricted AccessQuimioterapiaPlatino (Metal)CarcinomaTerapéuticaSobrevidaDocetaxelPaclitaxelSeguridadEficacia10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33297-X1474-547Xhttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bitstream/10026.1/10984/1/Atezo_Lancet_IMvigor211_Powles_MS_DRAFT11_2017SEP19.pdf