Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 27, 2026

Induction of Invasive Transitional Cell Bladder Carcinoma in Immune Intact Human MUC1 Transgenic Mice: A Model for Immunotherapy Development
Published on: October 30, 2013
First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Older Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and
Dalila Incognito1,2, Andrea D'Arienzo3, Sergio Facchini4
1Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Human Pathology "G. Barresi", School of Specialization in Medical Oncology, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy.
Abstract:
Urothelial carcinoma predominantly affects older patients, who often exhibit frailty, comorbidities, renal impairment, and reduced physiological reserve. We evaluated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line immune-based strategies in patients aged ≥65 years with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The aim was to characterize treatment effects within this age-defined subgroup, not to determine whether age modifies treatment efficacy compared with younger patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized trials published from January 2015 to May 2026 reporting age-specific survival outcomes. Combination regimens were compared with platinum-based chemotherapy using random-effects models. Results: Combination strategies improved OS versus chemotherapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), although heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 69.7%) and the prediction interval crossed the null (0.48-1.27). Class-specific HRs were 0.56 (95% CI 0.26-1.20) for ADC plus ICI, 0.85 (0.77-0.95) for ICI plus chemotherapy, and 0.91 (0.34-2.42) for dual-checkpoint inhibition. PFS favoured experimental treatment but remained imprecise (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.08; I2 = 89.5%). Excluding ADC plus ICI trials attenuated the OS effect (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96), indicating that the pooled estimate was influenced by these trials. ICI monotherapy did not improve OS. Conclusions: First-line immune-based combinations improved survival in selected patients aged ≥65 years, but benefit varied across treatment classes and should not be considered uniform across regimens. These findings do not establish whether age modifies treatment efficacy. Age-specific safety data were insufficient to define the benefit-risk profile of individual strategies.