Cited by 374Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFerroptosis and cancer prognosis

A review on the evolution of PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy for bladder cancer: The future is now

Open access
Bellmunt, Joaquin, Powles, Thomas, Vogelzang, Nicholas J.·2017·Cancer Treatment Reviews

Abstract

The treatment of bladder cancer has evolved over time to encompass not only the traditional modalities of chemotherapy and surgery, but has been particularly impacted by the use of immunotherapy. The first immunotherapy was the live, attenuated bacterial Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine, which has been the standard of care non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer since 1990. Modern immunotherapy has focused on inhibitors of checkpoint proteins, which are molecules that impede immune function, thereby allowing tumor cells to grow and proliferate unregulated. Several checkpoint targets (programmed death ligand-1 [PD-L1] programmed cell death protien-1 [PD-1], and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 [CTLA4]) have received the most attention in the treatment of bladder cancer, and have inhibitor agents either approved or in late-stage development. This review describes the most recent data on agents that inhibit PD-L1, found on the surface of tumor cells, and PD-1 found on activated T and B cells and macrophages. Atezolizumab is the only member of this class currently approved for the treatment of bladder cancer, but nivolumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab all have positive results for this indication, and approvals are anticipated in the near future. The checkpoint inhibitors offer an effective alternative for patients for whom previously there were few options for durable responses, including those who are ineligible for cisplatin-based regimens or who are at risk of significant toxicity. Research is ongoing to further categorize responses, define ideal patient populations, and investigate combinations of checkpoint inhibitors to address multiple pathways in immune system functioning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.01.007

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bellmunt, J., Powles, T., & Vogelzang, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada (US)
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
54
Pages
58-67
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2584071843
Cited by
374
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 22
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Treatment Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Lockwood Group Inc
  • AstraZeneca
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Ferroptosis and cancer prognosis
Keywords
bladder cancer, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, CTLA-4, atezolizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, BCG vaccine, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, combination immunotherapy, cisplatin-ineligible patients
MeSH terms
Nivolumab, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Humans, Immunotherapy, Molecular Targeted Therapy, B7-H1 Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review