Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The therapeutic effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in bladder cancer varies among individuals. Identifying reliable predictors of response to these therapies is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes. This retrospective study analyzed 348 bladder cancer patients treated with ICIs, with additional validation using data from 248 patients at our institution who underwent PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining. We examined patient smoking history, clinicopathological characteristics, and immune phenotypes. The main focus was the correlation between smoking history and immunotherapy outcomes. Multivariate logistic and Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to adjust for confounders. The study cohort comprised 348 bladder cancer patients receiving ICIs. Among them, 116 (33.3%) were never smokers, 197 (56.6%) were former smokers (median pack-years = 28), and 35 (10.1%) were current smokers (median pack-years = 40). Analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in overall survival across different smoking statuses (objective response rates were 11.4% for current smokers, 17.2% for never smokers, and 22.3% for former smokers; P = 0.142, 0.410, and 0.281, respectively). However, a notable trend indicated a potentially better response to immunotherapy in former smokers compared to current and never smokers. In the validation cohort of 248 patients from our institution, immunohistochemical analysis showed that PD-L1 expression was significantly higher in former smokers (55%) compared to current smokers (37%) and never smokers (47%). This observation underscores the potential influence of smoking history on the tumor microenvironment and its responsiveness to ICIs. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the importance of incorporating smoking history in predicting the response to immunotherapy in bladder cancer patients, highlighting its role in personalized cancer treatment approaches. Further research is suggested to explore the comprehensive impact of lifestyle factors on treatment outcomes.
Kong et al. (Thu,) studied this question.