Abstract
Background/Aim: This study aimed to clarify the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on oncological outcomes in patients who received pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Patients and Methods: Forty advanced UC patients treated with pembrolizumab were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups (PPI: 15 patients; without PPI: 25 patients). Tumor response and survival were compared between these groups. The factors associated with survival were also investigated. Results: The objective response rate was significantly lower in the group with PPIs compared with the group without PPIs. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly shorter in the group with PPIs than in the group without PPIs. The use of PPIs was a significant predictor of poor PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The use of PPIs was negatively associated with tumor response and survival in patients with advanced UC treated with pembrolizumab.
- Proton pump inhibitors
- urothelial carcinoma
- gut microbiota
- pembrolizumab
- immune checkpoint inhibitors
- antibiotics
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) greatly impact the management of patients with many malignancies including advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) (1, 2). Pembrolizumab, an ICI that targets programmed cell death protein-1, demonstrated survival benefit in patients with advanced UC that had recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy (1). Recent guidelines for bladder or upper urinary tract cancer recommend pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for patients who previously received platinum-based combination chemotherapy. However, the median overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) were 10.1 months and 21.1%, respectively (3), and the oncological benefits of pembrolizumab were limited. Additionally, some patients experienced immune-related adverse events. Therefore, an unmet medical need to identify the biomarkers predicting pembrolizumab response was noted.
The gut microbiota plays an important role in immune function (4, 5), and comedications with putative immune-disrupting effect, such as antibiotics (ATBs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has recently emerged as a potential response predictor to ICIs for patients with advanced cancers (6-8). The impact of concomitant PPIs on therapeutic efficacy is still unclear in patients with advanced UC treated with pembrolizumab, although the use of ATBs was reported to be associated with worse outcomes (9). This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of the use of PPI in patients who received pembrolizumab for advanced UC.
Patients and Methods
Patients. Consecutive patients with advanced UC who received pembrolizumab after the failure of at least one platinum-based chemotherapy in hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan between March 2018 and March 2021 were retrospectively reviewed.
Study design and data collection. Clinical and laboratory data including the use of PPIs or ATBs were collected from the patients’ medical records. The use of PPIs is any administration within 60 and 30 days before and after initial pembrolizumab initiation was recorded, whereas the use of ATBs is any administration within 30 days before and after initial pembrolizumab initiation was recorded. Patients were categorized into two groups with or without PPIs use. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS between the groups were compared. The factors associated with PFS and OS were also investigated. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (UOEHCRB21-074).
Treatment and follow-up examinations. Pembrolizumab was administered at a fixed dose of 200 or 400 mg every 3 or 6 weeks, respectively, and continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Chest and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at baseline and every 2-3 months to evaluate the therapeutic effect. Tumor response was evaluated following the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor, version 1.1.
Statistical analysis. Patient characteristics were compared between the groups using Mann–Whitney U-test or Fisher’s exact test for continuous or nominal variables, respectively. Tumor responses between the groups were compared using Fisher’s exact test. PFS and OS were calculated from the first date of pembrolizumab therapy to the date of disease progression and the last follow-up or death from any cause, respectively. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model to identify the factors associated with PFS and OS. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) (10).
Results
Patient characteristics. Forty patients with advanced UC received pembrolizumab as sequential therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy during the study period. Patient characteristics, categorized by the use of PPIs, are summarized in Table I. Of the 40 patients, 15 and 25 patients were divided into the with and without PPIs groups, respectively. Patients in the group with PPIs were more likely to have low hemoglobin (<10 g/dl; 60% vs. 24%) and use of antibiotics history (60% vs. 12%) compared with the group without PPIs.
Patient characteristics.
Tumor response. Four and one patient in the groups with and without PPIs, respectively, did not undergo any CT scans for evaluation of tumor response because of their clinical progression (e.g., fatigue or anorexia). The best responses in each group are shown in Figure 1. Of the 11 patients in the group with PPIs whose tumor responses were evaluated, complete response (CR) was not observed, and partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were observed in one (9.1%), two (18.2%), and eight (72.7%), respectively. Of the 24 patients in the group without PPIs, CR, PR, SD, and PD were observed in one (4.2%), 15 (62.5%), two (8.3%), and six (25%), respectively. The ORR of the group with and without PPIs were 9.1% and 66.7%, respectively. A significant difference was noted between the two groups.
The best responses of each group categorized by the use of PPIs.
Effects of PPIs on survival. Progression was observed in 29 patients during the median follow-up of 11.2 months (interquartile range=4.7-16.6 months); of these, six patients received subsequent therapy (gemcitabine-carboplatin, 3; paclitaxel-gemcitabine, 2; and etoposide-carboplatin, 1). Twenty-four patients expired of UC, and one patient expired of another cause during the follow-up period. In survival analyses, PFS was significantly shorter in the group with PPIs than in the group without PPIs [median, 2.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.3-7.4) vs. 15.2 months (95%CI=5.9-35.2); p=0.002]. OS was also significantly shorter in the group with PPIs than in the group without PPIs (median, 5.3 months (95%CI=2.4-15.7) vs. 25.8 months (95%CI=10.2-cannot be estimated); p<0.001) (Figure 2). In the multivariate analysis, the use of PPIs, liver metastases (presence), and duration from prior chemotherapy (<3 months) were significantly associated with poor OS (Table II) and PFS (Table III).
Kaplan–Meier estimates of (A) progression-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients stratified by PPIs use.
Univariate and multivariate analysis to predict progression-free survival.
Univariate and multivariate analyses to predict overall survival.
Discussion
In this study, 15 (38%) of 40 eligible patients had a history of using PPIs. Lower ORR. shorter PFS and OS were observed in patients who used PPIs and received pembrolizumab for advanced UC compared with those who did not use PPIs. Additionally, the use of PPIs, liver metastases, and short duration (<3 months) from prior chemotherapy to pembrolizumab initiation were significant predictors of poor PFS and OS.
The gut microbiota has been recently reported to be associated with cancer immunity and response to cancer immunotherapy (4, 5, 11). Several studies reported that the use of ATBs (12, 13) or PPIs (14, 15) resulted in lower abundance in gut commensals and lower microbial diversity. Furthermore, a negative prognostic association between the use of ATB or PPIs and oncological outcomes in UC patients treated with atezolizumab, an ICI that targets programmed cell death protein-1 ligand-1, was noted in the clinical trials IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 (16, 17).
The current study demonstrated that the use of PPIs is associated with poor tumor response and survival outcomes in advanced UC patients treated with pembrolizumab. These results suggested that PPIs should be discontinued before pembrolizumab initiation and should not be prescribed during the pembrolizumab treatment period in patients with advanced UC. However, PPIs are commonly prescribed in patients with malignancies to manage or prevent gastrointestinal disorders. If discontinuation of anti-acid drug treatment is not acceptable, switching from PPIs to histamine-2 blockers (H2 blockers) may be one of the options because H2 blockers have been reported to influence less the gut microbiota compared to PPIs (12, 18, 19).
Although previous studies reported that the use of ATBs is a risk factor for oncological outcomes, it was not significantly associated with tumor response and survival in this study. Several studies showed that the use of PPIs caused more prominent changes in the microbiota than ATBs (12, 14). The use of PPIs might have a greater impact on oncological outcomes in patients treated with pembrolizumab for advanced UC compared with that of ATBs.
Several biomarkers including blood cell count markers such as neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio (20, 21), C-reactive protein (22, 23), or nutritional status-based markers (e.g., prognostic nutritional index) (24) have been identified in patients with advanced UC on pembrolizumab. Although these markers are useful in predicting the oncological pembrolizumab outcomes, they cannot be used to improve the therapeutic effect. Moreover, discontinuing or avoiding the prescription of PPIs may improve the therapeutic effect of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced UC. Therefore, the results of the current study may have great significance in the management of advanced UC.
This study has several limitations. First, the study had a small sample size, and the follow-up period was limited. The favorable ORR in patients who underwent pembrolizumab therapy was 48.9% in the current study compared with 21.1% in the KEYNOTE-045 study (1). Therefore, some biases may be included in the results of the current study because of its retrospective nature. Second, although some studies reported that other comedications, except for ATBs and PPIs, (e.g., corticosteroids, psychotropic drugs, or opioids) also alter the antitumoral effect of ICIs (7, 8), these drugs were not evaluated in this study. However, few patients took the drugs in the current study. Thus, they were excluded from the analysis.
In conclusion, the use of PPIs had a negative impact on tumor response and survival of patients with advanced UC treated with pembrolizumab. Administration of PPIs may be avoided during the pembrolizumab treatment period for advanced UC.
Footnotes
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization: Ikko Tomisaki; Methodology: Ikko Tomisaki, Mirii Harada; Formal analysis and investigation: Ikko Tomisaki, Mirii Harada, Akinori Minato, Yujiro Nagata, Rieko Kimuro, Katsuyoshi Higashijima; Writing - original draft preparation: Ikko Tomisaki; Writing - review and editing: Kenichi Harada, Naohiro Fujimoto; Resources: Ikko Tomisaki; Supervision: Naohiro Fujimoto. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The Authors have no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.
- Received December 23, 2021.
- Revision received January 12, 2022.
- Accepted January 13, 2022.
- Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.