上尿路尿路上皮癌伴多发脑转移1例
A Case of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma with Multiple Brain Metastases
摘要: 目的:通过分享1例上尿路尿路上皮癌(UTUC)脑转移病例的治疗经验并回顾相关文献,提升对这类病症的认知,优化治疗方案。方法:介绍1例71岁男性左肾盂尿路上皮癌患者,其初诊时伴有腹膜后淋巴结及多处脑转移,组建多学科团队分析后,采用替雷利珠单抗联合维迪西妥单抗的治疗方案,进行随访观察。复习相关文献探讨该疾病特点及治疗现状。结果:治疗后患者左肾原发病灶达到完全缓解状态,脑转移灶部分缓解,神经系统症状显著改善,治疗一年后仍存活且生活质量良好。文献研究发现UTUC侵袭性强、预后差,脑转移治疗困难,免疫治疗和靶向治疗联合可能有潜在优势。结论:联合免疫疗法与抗体偶联药物(ADC),或许能为尿路上皮癌脑转移患者带来理想的治疗效果,但仍需大样本前瞻性研究进一步验证疗效和明确作用机制。
Abstract: Objective: To enhance the understanding of this type of disease and optimize the treatment plan by sharing the treatment experience of a case of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) with brain metastasis and reviewing relevant literature. Methods: A 71-year-old male patient with urothelial carcinoma of the left renal pelvis was introduced. At the initial diagnosis, he had retroperitoneal lymph node metastases and multiple brain metastases. After analysis by a multidisciplinary team, a treatment plan combining tislelizumab and vidicitumab was adopted, and follow-up observations were carried out. Relevant literature was reviewed to explore the characteristics of the disease and the current treatment status. Results: After treatment, the patient’s primary lesion in the left kidney achieved a complete remission, the brain metastases had a partial remission, and the neurological symptoms were significantly improved. One year after treatment, the patient was still alive and had a good quality of life. Literature research found that UTUC is highly invasive with a poor prognosis, and the treatment of brain metastases is difficult. The combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy may have potential advantages. Conclusion: The combination of immunotherapy and antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) drugs may bring ideal treatment effects for patients with urothelial carcinoma and brain metastases. However, large-sample prospective studies are still needed to further verify the efficacy and clarify the mechanism of action.
文章引用:孔邵秋, 张善华, 韩骁然, 王建宇, 宁豪. 上尿路尿路上皮癌伴多发脑转移1例[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(4): 82-89. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.154904

1. 介绍

尿路上皮癌是泌尿系统最常见的肿瘤之一,起源于下尿路(膀胱和尿道)或上尿路(肾盂、肾盏和输尿管)。当尿路上皮癌起源于上尿路时,被归类为上尿路尿路上皮癌(upper tract urothelial carcinoma, UTUC)。UTUC约占所有尿路上皮癌的5%至10%,年发病率约为2例/10万[1]。大多数UTUC病例(56%至63%)起源于肾盂,约37%至44%起源于输尿管[2]

吸烟和接触芳香胺是UTUC和膀胱癌的重要风险因素。UTUC特有的其他风险因素包括接触职业致癌物、砷,长期服用止痛药、患高血压、存在慢性尿路梗阻、感染、巴尔干地方性肾病以及中草药肾病[3]-[6]

对于UTUC的诊断,CT (Computed Tomography, CT)尿路造影是首选方法,也可以根据临床情况选择输尿管镜检查和尿液细胞学检查[7]。目前,低风险的UTUC患者可考虑保留肾脏的治疗方式,但这种治疗的复发风险较高,且需要严密随访。因此,对于非转移性的UTUC,首选的治疗方案是手术治疗,即根治性肾输尿管切除术联合膀胱袖状切除术[8]

大约9%的UTUC患者在确诊时已出现转移,这通常预示着糟糕的预后。转移性上尿路尿路上皮癌(metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma, mUTUC)的一线治疗通常是铂类化疗,采用这种治疗方法,患者的中位总生存期为12至14个月[9]。脑转移的出现意味着更差的生存预后。尿路上皮癌发生脑转移的概率极低,约为1%。由于数据有限,其潜在的生物学机制仍未得到充分了解。此外,血脑屏障的存在会削弱全身治疗的效果,给恶性肿瘤累及中枢神经系统的治疗带来困难[10]。目前,针对脑转移的治疗选择主要包括手术和放疗,然而这些方法往往效果欠佳。

通过分享1例上尿路尿路上皮癌脑转移病例的治疗经验并回顾相关文献,我们致力于提升对这类棘手病症的认知,同时优化针对此类患者的治疗方案。

2. 病例展示

我们在此介绍一位71岁男性患者的病例,该患者既往无泌尿或神经系统肿瘤病史。2023年6月,他因持续性超过两个月的间歇性左侧下背部疼痛,以及持续一个多月的记忆力减退和头痛症状,前来我院就诊。患者肢体活动正常,未出现血尿、面瘫或感觉丧失等症状。鉴于他的症状,我们对其泌尿系统进行了全面的CT检查。结果显示左肾有一肿物,同时伴有多个增大的腹膜后淋巴结(图1)。放射科医生诊断为左肾盂恶性肿瘤伴腹膜后淋巴结转移,根据影像学表现推测为尿路上皮癌。由于患者存在头痛和记忆力减退症状,我们怀疑可能累及神经系统,因此安排了头颅核磁共振成像(Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI)检查。该项检查显示左丘脑区域和右颞叶存在异常信号灶,符合转移性肿瘤特征。

Figure 1. The imaging and pathological findings at the time of initial presentation of the patient. (A)~(D) The renal enhancement CT shows a low-density lesion with poor blood supply in the anterior lobe of the left kidney, with indistinct borders, and enlarged lymph nodes on the left side of the abdominal aorta. The radiological expert tends to left renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma with retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis. (E)~(G) Cancer cells were found in the biopsied tissue, and the pathologists tend to diagnose it as urothelial carcinoma

1. 患者初诊时的影像学及病理检查结果。(A)~(D) 肾脏增强CT显示,左肾前唇有一低密度、血供不佳的病灶,边界不清,同时腹主动脉左侧淋巴结肿大。影像学专家倾向于诊断为左肾盂尿路上皮癌伴腹膜后淋巴结转移。(E)~(G) 活检组织中发现癌细胞,病理学家诊断为尿路上皮癌

随后,对位于左肾中部、大小约3.9 × 3.4厘米的实性低回声肿物进行了超声引导下活检。活检结束后,患者出院等待病理结果,以便制定进一步的治疗方案。不幸的是,在等待过程中,患者的烦躁情绪明显加重,头痛也愈发剧烈。当地医疗机构采取了降低颅内压及营养支持等治疗措施,但效果甚微。在发现脑转移后的一个月内,患者陷入昏迷。

活检组织的病理检查证实存在癌细胞,诊断尿路上皮癌(图1)。然而,由于样本量有限,仅完成了部分免疫组化检测。且鉴于患者身体状况不佳,无法进行二次活检。

针对这一复杂病例,我们组建了多学科团队,成员包括泌尿外科、病理科、肿瘤科及影像科专家。综合患者的临床症状、影像结果及病理后,我们诊断患者为左肾盂尿路上皮癌,伴腹膜后淋巴结及多处脑转移。鉴于近期研究表明抗体偶联药物(ADC)疗法对晚期上尿路尿路上皮癌(UTUC)有效,且免疫疗法对脑转移有一定前景,在征得患者及其家属同意后,我们制定了替雷利珠单抗联合维迪西妥单抗的治疗方案。

治疗开始后的第一天,患者出现呕吐症状,在2~3天内开始能够少量进食。到第四天,患者短暂恢复意识,且经口进食量有所增加。治疗五天后,患者能够自主排便。值得注意的是,治疗一周后,患者能够自行走动,记忆力也有所改善。

患者在完成第四个疗程的治疗后入院进行复查。CT扫描显示左肾病灶显著缩小,腹主动脉旁增大的淋巴结也明显缩小。脑部MRI检查表明,位于右海马体和左丘脑的圆形病灶大幅减小,相关水肿已消退(图2图3)。

此外,还进行了正电子发射断层显像/X线计算机体层成像扫描(PET-CT),结果显示,既往CT和MRI检查中发现的病灶,包括左肾、左丘脑区域、右海马区域,以及腹膜后区域的多个小淋巴结,均未出现异常的氟代脱氧葡萄糖代谢。结合患者病史,我们得出结论,通过靶向联合免疫治疗已有效抑制了肿瘤活性。

基于这些临床发现和影像结果,我们评估患者病情已显著改善,证实了所采用治疗方案的有效性。截至2024年6月,即脑转移确诊一年后,患者仍然存活,并接受了进一步的随访检查。其中包括脑部MRI和肾脏增强CT,两项检查均未显示病灶复发。此外,评估凝血功能、肝功能及其他血液学指标的血液检测结果基本正常,仅谷氨酰转移酶和腺苷脱氨酶水平升高。

Figure 2. The changes in the left kidney and retroperitoneal lymph nodes on CT scans during treatment in the patient. (A) (B) The enhanced CT scan at the patient’s initial visit showed a low-density lesion with poor blood supply in the anterior lobe of the left kidney, with indistinct borders. The lymph nodes on the left side of the abdominal aorta were markedly enlarged and showed uneven enhancement. (C) (D) After completing four cycles of treatment, the patient underwent a renal CT scan with contrast enhancement. The CT showed significant shrinkage of the lesion in the left kidney as well as the lymph nodes on the left side of the abdominal aorta

2. 该患者治疗期间CT扫描显示的左肾及腹膜后淋巴结变化。(A) (B) 患者初诊时的增强CT扫描显示,左肾前蠢存在一个血供较差的低密度病灶,边界模糊。腹主动脉左侧的淋巴结明显肿大,且强化不均匀。(C) (D) 完成四个周期的治疗后,患者接受了肾脏增强CT扫描。CT显示左肾病灶以及腹主动脉左侧的淋巴结均显著缩小

Figure 3. The changes in the nodules in the left thalamus and right hippocampus before and after treatment. (A)~(D) Axial MRI of the head and brain shows the nodules in the right hippocampus and with left thalamus with marked edema. The nodules were clearly enhanced in the post-contrast scan. (E)~(H) After completing the fourth course of treatment, the patient underwent an MRI of the head and brain. The roundish nodules in the right hippocampus and the left thalamus had significantly shrunk, and the edema had disappeared

3. 治疗前后左丘脑和右海马结节的变化。(A)~(D) 头部及脑部轴位磁共振成像(MRI)显示,右海马和左丘脑存在结节,伴有明显水肿。增强扫描后结节强化明显。(E)~(H) 完成第四个疗程的治疗后,患者进行了头部及脑部MRI检查。右海马和左丘脑的圆形结节显著缩小,水肿消失

3. 讨论

UTUC是一种罕见的恶性肿瘤,占所有尿路上皮癌的5%~10%。与膀胱癌相比,上尿路尿路上皮癌侵袭性更强,临床预后更差。膀胱癌在确诊时仅10%~15%是浸润性,而上尿路尿路上皮癌的这一比例则上升至约60% [11]。由于UTUC发病率较低,其治疗方案在很大程度上依赖于膀胱癌的研究成果。尽管这两种癌症在形态上有相似之处,但在胚胎学和分子特征方面依旧存在差异。基因研究表明,虽然UTUC和膀胱癌存在相似的基因突变,但在突变频率、肿瘤突变负荷以及表达模式上有所不同,进而导致了不同的临床行为表现。目前,我们对UTUC潜在分子机制的了解十分有限,因此缺乏有效的治疗方法。在过去几十年里,UTUC患者的生存率几乎没有提高。处于pT2和pT3期的患者,其五年特异性生存率约为50%,而发生转移的患者,这一比例则骤降至仅5% [1] [2] [11]-[13]。诸如高龄、吸烟史、多发病灶、基础情况差等预后因素,以及淋巴结受累、手术切缘阳性等病理结果,都与较差的预后相关[1] [5]

脑转移可由多种肿瘤类型引发,包括尿路上皮癌,这会显著降低患者的生存几率。未经治疗的脑转移患者平均生存时间约为两个月。中枢神经系统转移的症状可能有恶心、呕吐、头痛、共济失调、癫痫发作、意识丧失、局灶性神经功能缺损以及脑膜刺激征。我们可以借助头部CT和MRI等影像学检查辅助诊断[10] [14]

由于UTUC发生脑转移的情况十分罕见,我们在这方面的认知仍然有限。近期一项涵盖154例尿路上皮癌伴中枢神经系统转移患者的回顾性研究发现,大多数原发肿瘤起源于膀胱(91%),其次是上尿路(6%)和尿道(3%)。脑转移病例约占其中的73%。治疗方法包括手术、放疗及多种方式联合。遗憾的是,中枢神经系统转移患者的预后往往不佳,尤其是当存在多个病灶时。手术干预后,患者平均剩余生存期约为2.8个月,与未接受治疗的患者相近[10]。因此,迫切需要探索针对伴有脑转移的尿路上皮癌的新治疗方案。血脑屏障的特点是阻力高、通透性低,这对药物递送构成重大挑战。这一屏障限制了治疗药物进入大脑,使得大脑成为转移性肿瘤细胞的“庇护所”[15]-[17]。因此,迫切需要能够穿透血脑屏障的药物来进行有效治疗。最近免疫疗法的进展为治疗已发生脑转移的尿路上皮癌患者提供了新途径。研究表明,程序性死亡受体1 (Programmed Death Receptor 1, PD-1)或程序性死亡受体配体1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1, PD-L1)抑制剂有助于降低恶性肿瘤脑转移患者的疾病进展和死亡风险[18]

程序性死亡受体1 (PD-1)是一种表达于活化T细胞表面的受体,在免疫调节中发挥作用。当PD-1与其配体结合时,会抑制T细胞活性,使肿瘤细胞能够逃避机体的免疫检测。针对PD-1的抗体能够阻断这种相互作用,增强T细胞介导的对肿瘤细胞的杀伤作用。几种PD-1/PD-L1抑制剂已获得美国食品药品监督管理局批准,用于治疗包括尿路上皮癌在内的多种癌症[19] [20]

近期一份病例报告介绍了一位患有高级别尿路上皮癌的患者,该患者出现了脑、心脏及肺部淋巴结转移。在接受免疫检查点抑制剂治疗后,脑转移瘤显著缩小,且患者在确诊后16个月内总体生存状况良好[21]。尽管该病例的癌症起源于膀胱,但这表明免疫检查点抑制剂或许能够穿透血脑屏障,并有效作用于脑转移瘤,为未来的治疗策略提供了重要思路。不过,仍需进一步研究以明确此类药物透过血脑屏障作用于脑转移灶的作用机制。一种假设认为,这可能是因为在肿瘤进展过程中,血脑屏障遭到破坏,进而形成了血–肿瘤屏障,后者具有更高的通透性,可能会增加药物在脑部的浓度。此外,血脑屏障的破坏可能会促进肿瘤相关抗原的呈递[16]

鉴于患者的病情以及家属的意愿,我们选择替雷利珠单抗作为针对脑转移的免疫治疗药物。替雷利珠单抗是一种对PD-1具有高特异性的单克隆抗体,其设计目的是抑制PD-1与巨噬细胞上Fcγ受体的相互作用,从而减少抗体依赖的细胞吞噬作用[19]

同时,既往研究表明抗ADC类药物在局部晚期和转移性尿路上皮癌的治疗中已显示出令人鼓舞的效果。并且当它与免疫疗法联合使用时,也具有可接受的安全性[22]

因此,我们将维迪西妥单抗纳入患者的治疗方案。维迪西妥单抗是一种旨在靶向人表皮生长因子受体2 (HER-2)的ADC药物。ADC药物的作用机制是通过连接子将具有生物活性的小分子药物与单克隆抗体相连,利用抗体的载体功能将药物靶向输送至靶细胞。所以,ADC药物兼具细胞毒性药物的强大杀伤作用与重组单克隆抗体的高靶向性。目前,已有数种ADC药物获批用于治疗晚期尿路上皮癌患者[23]-[25]

鉴于有证据支持ADC类药物对晚期UTUC的疗效,且免疫疗法有突破血脑屏障对脑转移灶起效的案例,我们制定了联合治疗方案。截至本文撰写时,自该患者被诊断为UTUC伴多处脑转移已过去一年多,患者仍保持着良好的生活质量。临床表现、影像学结果以及PET-CT检查均表明患者病情有显著改善。这些发现提示,将靶向疗法与免疫疗法相结合,可能为晚期尿路上皮癌伴脑转移的患者带来新希望。有必要开展更大样本量的前瞻性研究,以探究这种联合治疗方法的疗效,并阐明这些治疗手段作用于脑转移瘤的机制。

研究局限性:本研究仅聚焦于单一患者,鉴于个体差异,研究结果的普遍适用性可能受限。此外,目前随访时长仅为一年,要进行全面评估还需要更多数据。针对晚期尿路上皮癌伴脑转移,免疫联合疗法与ADC类药物之间相互作用的机制,也有待进一步探究。

4. 结论

联合免疫疗法与ADC类药物,可能会为患有尿路上皮癌且发生脑转移的患者带来充满希望的治疗效果。

致 谢

在本文写作完成之际,我满怀感恩之心。衷心感谢参与此病例治疗的多学科团队成员,泌尿外科、病理科、肿瘤科及影像科的专家们凭借专业知识与协作精神,为患者制定精准治疗方案,也为研究提供了关键支持。感谢患者及其家属,在整个治疗与研究过程中给予充分信任、积极配合。同时,感谢参考文献的各位学者,其研究成果为本文奠定坚实理论基础。

声 明

该病例报道已获得患者的知情同意。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Mazzaschi, G., Giudice, G.C., Corianò, M., Campobasso, D., Perrone, F., Maffezzoli, M., et al. (2023) Upper Tract Urinary Carcinoma: A Unique Immuno-Molecular Entity and a Clinical Challenge in the Current Therapeutic Scenario. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, 22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338231159753
[2] Fujii, Y., Sato, Y., Suzuki, H., Kakiuchi, N., Yoshizato, T., Lenis, A.T., et al. (2021) Molecular Classification and Diagnostics of Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Cancer Cell, 39, 793-809.e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2021.05.008
[3] Li, Q., Bagrodia, A., Cha, E.K. and Coleman, J.A. (2016) Prognostic Genetic Signatures in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Current Urology Reports, 17, Article No. 12
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0566-y
[4] Stefanovic, V., Polenakovic, M. and Toncheva, D. (2011) Urothelial Carcinoma Associated with Balkan Endemic Nephropathy. a Worldwide Disease. Pathologie Biologie, 59, 286-291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patbio.2009.05.002
[5] Rouprêt, M., Babjuk, M., Burger, M., Capoun, O., Cohen, D., Compérat, E.M., et al. (2021) European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2020 Update. European Urology, 79, 62-79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.042
[6] Nally, E., Young, M., Chauhan, V., Wells, C., Szabados, B., Powles, T., et al. (2024) Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma (UTUC): Prevalence, Impact and Management Challenge. Cancer Management and Research, 16, 467-475.
https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s445529
[7] Soria, F., Shariat, S.F., Lerner, S.P., Fritsche, H., Rink, M., Kassouf, W., et al. (2016) Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Preoperative Evaluation and Prognostic Assessment of Upper-Tract Urothelial Carcinoma (UTUC). World Journal of Urology, 35, 379-387.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1928-x
[8] Margulis, V., Shariat, S.F., Matin, S.F., Kamat, A.M., Zigeuner, R., Kikuchi, E., et al. (2009) Outcomes of Radical Nephroureterectomy: A Series from the Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Collaboration. Cancer, 115, 1224-1233.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24135
[9] Su, R., Chen, Z., Hu, H., Jiang, S., Chen, M., Chen, Q., et al. (2023) Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Plus Nab-Paclitaxel in Metastatic Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Translational Andrology and Urology, 12, 1416-1425.
https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-23-404
[10] Diamantopoulos, L.N., Khaki, A.R., Sonpavde, G.P., Venur, V.A., Yu, E.Y., Wright, J.L., et al. (2020) Central Nervous System Metastasis in Patients with Urothelial Carcinoma: Institutional Experience and a Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 18, e266-e276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.11.008
[11] Leow, J.J., Chong, K.T., Chang, S.L. and Bellmunt, J. (2016) Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Different Disease Entity in Terms of Management. ESMO Open, 1, e000126.
https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000126
[12] Tomiyama, E., Fujita, K., Nakano, K., Kuwahara, K., Minami, T., Kato, T., et al. (2022) Trop-2 in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. Current Oncology, 29, 3911-3921.
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29060312
[13] Grahn, A., Coleman, J.A., Eriksson, Y., Gabrielsson, S., Madsen, J.S., Tham, E., et al. (2023) Consultation on UTUC II Stockholm 2022: Diagnostic and Prognostic Methods—What’s around the Corner? World Journal of Urology, 41, 3405-3411.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04597-4
[14] Duan, L., Zeng, R., Yang, K., Tian, J., Wu, X., Dai, Q., et al. (2014) Whole Brain Radiotherapy Combined with Stereotactic Radiotherapy versus Stereotactic Radiotherapy Alone for Brain Metastases: A Meta-Analysis. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 15, 911-915.
https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.2.911
[15] Palmieri, D., Chambers, A.F., Felding-Habermann, B., Huang, S. and Steeg, P.S. (2007) The Biology of Metastasis to a Sanctuary Site. Clinical Cancer Research, 13, 1656-1662.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-2659
[16] Arvanitis, C.D., Ferraro, G.B. and Jain, R.K. (2019) The Blood-Brain Barrier and Blood-Tumour Barrier in Brain Tumours and Metastases. Nature Reviews Cancer, 20, 26-41.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0205-x
[17] Chow, B.W. and Gu, C. (2015) The Molecular Constituents of the Blood-Brain Barrier. Trends in Neurosciences, 38, 598-608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.08.003
[18] Li, W., Jiang, J., Huang, L. and Long, F. (2021) Efficacy of PD-1/L1 Inhibitors in Brain Metastases of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Pooled Analysis from Seven Randomized Controlled Trials. Future Oncology, 18, 403-412.
https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2021-0795
[19] Shen, L., Guo, J., Zhang, Q., et al. (2020) Tislelizumab in Chinese Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: An Open-Label, Non-Comparative, Phase 1/2 Study. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, 8, e000437.
[20] Desai, J., Deva, S., Lee, J.S., Lin, C., Yen, C., Chao, Y., et al. (2020) Phase IA/IB Study of Single-Agent Tislelizumab, an Investigational Anti-Pd-1 Antibody, in Solid Tumors. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, 8, e000453.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2019-000453
[21] Zhu, L., Li, Z., Wang, Z., Chen, J., Zhang, H., Zhao, X., et al. (2022) A Rare Case of Bladder Cancer That Metastasized to Brain, Heart, and Lung Lymph Nodes Benefited from Immunotherapy. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 20, Article No. 402.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02876-9
[22] O’Donnell, P.H., Milowsky, M.I., Petrylak, D.P., Hoimes, C.J., Flaig, T.W., Mar, N., et al. (2023) Enfortumab Vedotin with or without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients with Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41, 4107-4117.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.22.02887
[23] Rubin, E., Shan, K., Dalal, S., Vu, D., Milillo-Naraine, A., Guaqueta, D., et al. (2024) Molecular Targeting of the Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER2) Genes across Various Cancers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25, Article 1064.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25021064
[24] Chen, M., Yao, K., Cao, M., Liu, H., Xue, C., Qin, T., et al. (2023) Her2-targeting Antibody–drug Conjugate RC48 Alone or in Combination with Immunotherapy for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Real-World Study. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, 72, 2309-2318.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-023-03419-1
[25] Sheng, X., Yan, X., Wang, L., Shi, Y., Yao, X., Luo, H., et al. (2021) Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study of RC48-ADC, a Her2-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Research, 27, 43-51.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-2488