Impact of the Number of Cycles of Platinum Based First Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

Reevaluating the role of platinum-based chemotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard first-line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) for decades, based on the proven efficacy and established safety profiles of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimens. With the emergence of novel regimens, it is important to reevaluate and contextualize the role of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab 1L maintenance in patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy was established as a standard 1L regimen based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase III trial. More recently, the EV-302 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, and the Checkmate 901 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. These 2 regimens have now been included as standard 1L options in treatment guidelines for advanced UC. EV + pembrolizumab is now the preferred 1L treatment, and in locations where EV + pembrolizumab is not available or individual patients are not considered suitable, recommended options are platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance or nivolumab + cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for advanced UC recommended in guidelines, practical considerations with platinum-based chemotherapy, the role of avelumab 1L maintenance, recent phase III trials of EV + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine, safety profiles of recommended 1L treatments, and second-line treatment options.

Comparative Efficacy of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy Versus Continued Chemotherapy Followed by Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma With No Progression After 4 Cycles of Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching

INTRODUCTION

In cases of metastatic and unresectable urothelial carcinoma with no disease progression after 4 cycles of chemotherapy, including platinum agents, treatment options include continuation of chemotherapy or switching to maintenance therapy with avelumab. This study compared the treatment outcomes of avelumab maintenance therapy with those of pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma using propensity score matching.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2017 and December 2022, 243 patients with metastatic and unresectable urothelial carcinoma were treated with either avelumab or pembrolizumab at the Yamaguchi University Hospital and its affiliated institutions. We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and adverse events by aligning patient characteristics and treatment backgrounds using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The analysis compared 36 cases receiving avelumab maintenance therapy after chemotherapy to 49 cases where patients, after receiving 4 courses of chemotherapy including platinum-based agents without disease progression, were subsequently administered pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment following disease progression. Using propensity score matching, 27 cases from each group were selected for comparison. From the initiation of prechemotherapy to disease progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors, the median progression-free survival was 20.7 and 23.3 months in the avelumab and pembrolizumab groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference observed (P = .358). However, avelumab tended to have a lower rate of high-dose glucocorticoid treatment compared to pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSION

Progression-free survival was similar for avelumab maintenance therapy and the sequence of continued chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab after no disease progression at four chemotherapy courses. Avelumab may require less high-dose glucocorticoid treatment, potentially enhancing safety.

Four versus six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced Urothelial carcinoma in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A retrospective cohort study (FOCUS, KCSG-GU23-08)

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the survival outcomes of four versus six cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed advanced UC were allocated to either the 4-cycle PBCT (C4) or 6-cycle PBCT (C6) groups and retrospectively analyzed. After the planned cycles, active surveillance was conducted every 6-8 weeks, followed by second-line treatments, including ICIs, upon progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 161 patients initiated with PBCT between September 2016 and February 2023, 27 were deemed ineligible, leaving 134 patients for analysis (C4, n = 58; C6, n = 77). Baseline characteristics, including cisplatin eligibility, were similar between the groups. With a median follow-up of 23.7 months (95 % confidence interval (CI), 20.3-27.1), no significant difference was observed in OS between the C6 and C4 groups (18.7 months vs. 17.0 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.27, P = 0.343). In multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, initial presentation, metastatic lesion, and ECOG PS, no significant difference was observed between the C6 and C4 groups (HR 1.29, 95 % CI, 0.78-2.14, P = 0.315).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that four cycles of PBCT do not differ from six cycles regarding OS.

The evolving treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is currently the first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC); however, up to 50% of patients are ineligible for cisplatin, necessitating alternative treatment options. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to be effective in cisplatin-ineligible patients. However, despite advances in the first-line setting, the prognosis remains poor, and challenges persist in selecting optimal therapies, treatment sequences and combination regimens. Maintenance therapy with avelumab revealed improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with best supportive care alone in patients with platinum-responsive mUC. Antibody-drug conjugates and targeted therapy with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors have shown promise in selected patients, particularly in patients with metastatic disease that has progressed despite platinum-based chemotherapy. At the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress in 2023, groundbreaking results were presented from two phase III trials, EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 and CheckMate 901, focusing on previously untreated mUC. In the former, the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab showed significant improvements in OS, PFS and overall response rate compared with chemotherapy alone; the combination of nivolumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy demonstrated a significant extension in median OS, PFS and overall response rate compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer OS than chemotherapy among patients with mUC and FGFR alterations after previous treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This comprehensive summary of the current treatment landscape for mUC incorporates clinical trial evidence and discussion of agents that are currently under investigation to provide support for clinical decision making and understanding of future therapeutic approaches.

Optimal Number of Cycles of First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

In recent years, switch maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy has been a standard of care. However, the appropriate number of systemic chemotherapy cycles against advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma (UC) remains unclear. This study assessed the survival outcomes of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy according to treatment cycles in patients with metastatic disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with metastatic bladder and upper urinary tract cancer who received platinum-based combination therapy. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 179 patients, 47 (26.3%) were women, and 73 (40.8%) had upper urinary tract cancer. Furthermore, 47 (26.3%) who were not eligible for cisplatin received carboplatin. The median number of treatment cycles was 3 (range=1-14 cycles). The rates of progressive disease within two cycles, from two to four cycles, and from four to six cycles were 18.4%, 19.2%, and 30.6%, respectively. The median OS of patients with 2, 3, 4, 5-6, and ≥7 treatment cycles were 8.6, 14.3, 21.3, 24.4, and 26.1 months, respectively. The OS did not significantly differ between patients receiving four treatment cycles and those receiving ≥5 treatment cycles. In patients with disease control (complete or partial response or stable disease) receiving ≥4 treatment cycles, there was no significant difference in terms of OS between patients receiving four cycles and those receiving six cycles.

CONCLUSION

Four cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy can be effective in patients with metastatic UC.

The optimal number of induction chemotherapy cycles in clinically lymph node-positive bladder cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal number of induction chemotherapy cycles needed to achieve a pathological response in patients with clinically lymph node-positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa) who received three or four cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 388 patients who received three or four cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine or (dose-dense) methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC), followed by consolidative RC for cTanyN1-3M0 BCa. We compared pathological complete (pCR = ypT0N0) and objective response (pOR = yp ≤T1N0) between treatment groups. Predictors of pCR and/or pOR were assessed using uni- and multivariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary endpoints were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). We evaluated the association between the number of induction chemotherapy cycles administered and survival outcomes on multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 101 and 287 patients received three or four cycles of induction chemotherapy, respectively. Of these, 72 (19%) and 128 (33%) achieved pCR and pOR response, respectively. The pCR (20%, 18%) and pOR (40%, 31%) rates did not differ significantly between patients receiving three or four cycles (P > 0.05). The number of cycles was not associated with pCR or pOR on multivariable logistic regression analyses. The 2-year OS estimates were 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.74) and 63% (95% CI 0.58-0.7) for patients receiving three or four cycles, respectively. Receiving three vs four cycles was not associated with OS and CSS on uni- or multivariable Cox regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Pathological response and survival outcomes did not differ between administering three or four induction chemotherapy cycles in patients with cN+ BCa. A fewer cycles (minimum three) may be oncologically sufficient in patients with cN+ BCa, while decreasing the wait for definitive local therapy in those patients who end up without a response to chemotherapy. This warrants further validation.

Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists' perspective

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC.

Physician reported treatment patterns and outcomes in metastatic bladder cancer in the USA: the CancerMPact® Survey 2020

Aim: This study assessed physician-reported treatment patterns for metastatic bladder cancer. Materials & methods: A total of 106 USA-based physicians were surveyed in 2020 using the CancerMPact® online survey. Results: Among cisplatin-eligible patients, 86.1% received first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy, most commonly cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and 9.8% received immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. Among cisplatin-ineligible patients, 46.5% received 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy, most commonly carboplatin plus gemcitabine and 46.2% received 1L immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Approximately 44% of patients who received 1L treatment received second-line (2L) therapy after progression. Conclusion: Platinum-containing chemotherapy was the most widely reported 1L treatment approach. A high proportion of patients received no 2L therapy. Validation in an updated dataset is warranted following the practice-changing approvals of avelumab 1L maintenance and additional 2L options.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis from JAVELIN Bladder 100 by Duration of First-line Chemotherapy and Interval Before Maintenance

BACKGROUND

In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (advanced UC) without progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To report post hoc analyses of subgroups defined by the duration of first-line chemotherapy and interval before maintenance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with advanced UC without progression after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and a 4-10-wk interval after chemotherapy (n = 700) were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC or BSC alone. Subgroups were defined by duration (quartile [Q]) and estimated number of cycles of chemotherapy, and interval between chemotherapy and maintenance. The median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

OS (primary endpoint), PFS, and safety were assessed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were as follows: by chemotherapy duration-Q3: 0.63 (0.39-1.00); by number of cycles-four cycles: 0.69 (0.48-1.00), five cycles: 0.98 (0.57-1.71), and six cycles: 0.66 (0.47-0.92); and by interval-4-<6 wk: 0.75 (0.54-1.04), 6-<8 wk: 0.67 (0.43-1.06), and 8-10 wk: 0.69 (0.47-1.02). Results were similar for PFS. Safety was similar across subgroups. All analyses were exploratory.

CONCLUSIONS

Post hoc analyses of OS and PFS in subgroups defined by first-line chemotherapy duration and interval before maintenance were generally consistent with the results in the overall population, with similar safety findings. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Avelumab maintenance treatment helped patients with advanced urothelial cancer without disease progression after at least four cycles of prior chemotherapy, and who started maintenance treatment at least 4 wk after chemotherapy, to live longer.

Systemic treatment of advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer: The landscape in Australia

The 5-year survival rate of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is estimated to be as low as 5%. Currently, systemic platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy is the only first-line treatment for mUC that has an overall survival benefit. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (usually in combination with gemcitabine) is the preferred treatment but carboplatin is substituted where contraindications to cisplatin exist. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and kinase inhibitors has not yet demonstrated superiority to chemotherapy as first-line therapy and remains investigational in this setting. A recent media release indicates that chemotherapy plus nivolumab gives an OS advantage as first-line treatment but results of this study have not yet been made public. Pembrolizumab remains an option in those having primary progression on first-line chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The antibody-drug conjugate, enfortumab vedotin has TGA approval for patients whose cancer has progressed following chemotherapy and immunotherapy and has just received a positive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme recommendation. The use of molecular screens for somatic genetic mutations, gene amplifications, and protein expression is expanding as drugs that target such abnormalities show promise. However, despite these advances, a substantial proportion of patients with mUC have significant barriers to receiving any treatment, including advancing age, frailty, and comorbidities, and less toxic, effective therapies are needed.

Incidental detection of FGFR3 fusion via liquid biopsy leading to earlier diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma

The rising utilization of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays in Precision Oncology may incidentally detect genetic material from secondary sources. It is important that such findings are recognized and properly leveraged for both diagnosis and monitoring of response to treatment. Here, we report a patient in whom serial cell-free DNA (cfDNA) monitoring for his known prostate adenocarcinoma uncovered the emergence of an unexpected FGFR3-TACC3 gene fusion, a BRCA1 frameshift mutation, and other molecular abnormalities. Due to the rarity of FGFR3 fusions in prostate cancer, a workup for a second primary cancer was performed, leading to the diagnosis of an otherwise-asymptomatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Once UC-directed treatment was initiated, the presence of these genetic abnormalities in cfDNA allowed for disease monitoring and early detection of resistance, well before radiographic progression. These findings also uncovered opportunities for targeted therapies against FGFR and BRCA1. Overall, this report highlights the multifaceted utility of longitudinal ctDNA monitoring in early cancer diagnosis, disease prognostication, therapeutic target identification, monitoring of treatment response, and early detection of emergence of resistance.

Three versus four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three and four cycles of NAC in the treatment of MIBC through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were systematically collected and reviewed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science Databases, and the Cochrane Library. Relative ratios (RRs), Hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate outcome measures. Studies comparing the pathological response and prognosis of three versus four cycles of NAC for MIBC were included.

RESULTS

Five studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 2190 patients, of whom 1016 underwent three cycles of NAC and 1174 underwent four cycles of NAC. All studies were retrospective cohort studies. We found that 4 cycles of NAC had significantly better cancer-specific survival than 3 cycles (HR = 1.31, 95%CI,1.03-1.67, p = 0.029). There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients who received 3 and 4 cycles of chemotherapy (HR = 1.18, 95%CI = 0.83-1.69, p = 0.345). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in pathological objective response (RR = 0.95, 95%CI= 0.81-1.11, p = 0.515) and complete response rates (RR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.69-1.11, p = 0.256) in MIBC after 3 or 4 cycles of NAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Three and four cycles of NAC had similar pathological responses and prognosis for MIBC, although the cancer-specific survival rate of four cycles was better than that of three cycles.

Avelumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

This work provides a summary of guideline recommendations and an expert position on the use of maintenance avelumab therapy based on a review of current international clinical practice guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). A PubMed literature search was conducted in March 2022 (updated in July 2023) to identify guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic UC. An expert panel (four oncologists and one urologist) reviewed the guidelines and clinical evidence, and discussed practical questions regarding the use of avelumab maintenance therapy in this clinical setting. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line cisplatin-containing chemotherapy for cisplatin-eligible patients, carboplatin-gemcitabine for cisplatin-ineligible patients who are fit for carboplatin, or immunotherapy with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (e.g. atezolizumab) in platinum-ineligible patients. Maintenance avelumab is recommended in patients with response/stable disease following chemotherapy (regardless of PD-L1 status). In patients who relapse after/during chemotherapy, options include immunotherapy, erdafitinib [in those with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations], enfortumab vedotin or further chemotherapy. The expert panel provided the following practical guidance: (1) consider maintenance avelumab in all eligible patients; (2) continue avelumab until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity; (3) ideally, administer six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy prior to maintenance avelumab; (4) perform radiological evaluation after four chemotherapy cycles and prior to maintenance avelumab; (5) carboplatin-gemcitabine followed by maintenance avelumab is preferred in cisplatin-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 expression), but consider first-line immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients and platinum-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 status); and (6) for patients who relapse on avelumab, second-line options include enfortumab vedotin, FGFR inhibitors (in those with FGFR mutations) or clinical trial inclusion. In conclusion, avelumab maintenance therapy is recommended following platinum-based chemotherapy in all eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC, continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Limited predictive impact of tumor size dynamics on further tumor shrinkage after 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the correlation between tumor size changes during the initial 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy and tumor shrinkage following 2 additional cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who experienced disease control after initial chemotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 128 patients with aUC who received first-line chemotherapy. We analyzed 51 patients with disease control (stable disease or better) at the end of the fourth cycle. Of these, 47 patients received 1 to 2 additional cycles of chemotherapy, whereas the remaining patients underwent observation. For patients who received additional chemotherapy, the change in tumor size after additional chemotherapy (cycles 5-6) was defined as "no shrinkage" (tumor growth), "minor shrinkage" (no tumor growth or ≤10% reduction in tumor size), or "shrinkage" (>10% reduction in tumor size). Then, we investigated the relationship between the rate of tumor size change during the initial 4 cycles and that after additional chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the patients who received additional chemotherapy, the change in tumor size was categorized as no shrinkage in 21 patients (44.7%), minor shrinkage in 18 patients (38.3%), and shrinkage in 8 patients (17%). Regarding predictors of tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy, the rate of tumor size change between the cycles 3 and 4 (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.642) was correlated with the trend of the tumor shrinkage (P = 0.009) and the likelihood of beneficial tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy (minor shrinkage + shrinkage; P = 0.02). However, the change in tumor size between cycles 1 and 2, cycles 1 and 4, or cycles 3 and 4 was not satisfactorily predictive of further tumor shrinkage because of substantial overlaps of the tumor size changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small subset of patients would have substantial tumor shrinkage by additional cycles after successful induction of 4 cycle chemotherapy. Tumor size dynamics during the initial 4 cycles of chemotherapy displayed limited ability to predict the subset of patients with further tumor shrinkage after additional chemotherapy. Therefore, it might be better to consider switch maintenance immunotherapy for patients who experience disease control after the fourth cycle of first-line chemotherapy.

Are there differences in the characteristics of patients who respond to gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemotherapy and those who respond to pembrolizumab therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate factors to predict overall survival of metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemotherapy or pembrolizumab therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated two metastatic urothelial carcinoma cohorts treated with (i) gemcitabine plus cisplatin or (ii) pembrolizumab. The gemcitabine plus cisplatin cohort was treated from December 2005 through December 2014 while the pembrolizumab cohort was treated from January 2018 through December 2020. Using multivariate analyses, we evaluated the risk factors for overall survival in each cohort and compared them. None of the gemcitabine plus cisplatin cohort patients were treated with pembrolizumab. All patients in the pembrolizumab cohort were treated with prior platinum-based chemotherapy.

RESULTS

There were 184 patients in the gemcitabine plus cisplatin cohort and 91 in the pembrolizumab cohort. The mean follow-up periods were 714 and 284 days, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for overall survival in the gemcitabine plus cisplatin cohort were liver metastasis, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or more), no primary site resection, and a high prognostic index (1 or more). In the pembrolizumab cohort, liver metastasis, bone metastasis, and worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status (1 or more), and high prognostic index (1 or more) were the risk factors for overall survival. In the pembrolizumab cohort, patients with a complete response or partial response during prior platinum-based chemotherapy had better overall survival with the following pembrolizumab treatment than those with stable or progressive disease (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the similarity of these risk factors in two sequential treatments, it may be possible to predict the response to pembrolizumab according to the response to prior chemotherapy.

Clinical evidence and insights supporting the use of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the Asia-Pacific region

Until recently, international and Asia-specific guidelines for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) recommended first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy, followed by second-line (2L) anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy where possible, or 1L ICI therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients with PD-L1+ tumors. However, long-term outcomes remain poor and only a minority of patients receive 2L therapy. The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial-which assessed avelumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) as 1L maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy-is the only phase 3 trial of ICI-based treatment in the 1L setting to show significantly improved overall survival, and this treatment approach is now recommended in updated treatment guidelines. Available data from the trial suggest that efficacy and safety in patients enrolled in the Asia-Pacific region were similar to findings in the overall population. In this review, we discuss the treatment of advanced UC, with a specific focus on studies in the Asia-Pacific region, and summarize key findings supporting the use of avelumab 1L maintenance as a standard of care in this setting both in cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients and irrespective of PD-L1 status.

A Personalized Approach to Radical Cystectomy Can Decrease Its Complication Rates

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of a patient’s general status on perioperative morbidity and mortality after radical cystectomy, and to assess which of the used scales is best for the prediction of major complications. The data of 331 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, who underwent radical cystectomy, were analyzed. The general status was assessed according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and Geriatric-8 (G-8) scales. Complications were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo classification system. In a group of patients with the highest complication rate according to the Clavien–Dindo scale, (i) statistically more patients rated high according to the ASA and ECOG scales, (ii) patients had significantly higher CCI scores (minor complications (I-II), and (iii) there were significantly more patients rated as frail with G8—predominantly those with 11 points or fewer in the scale. A patient’s general status should be assessed before the start of therapy because patients with a high risk of death or serious complications (evaluated with any rating scale) should be offered conservative treatment. None of the scales can describe the risk of cystectomy, because the percentage of patients with major complications among those who achieved worse score results on any scale was not significantly different from the percentage of patients with major complications in the general group.

A retrospective study on optimal number of cycles of the first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Recently, switch maintenance with avelumab has been approved for the treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC), with no progression after four to six cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the optimal number of cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinical characteristics of patients with advanced UC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and investigate the association between the number of cycles of the treatment and the patients' overall survival.

METHODS

A total of 124 patients with advanced UC who were treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy at Osaka City University Hospital between April 2009 and January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 124 patients, clinical information regarding overall survival was available for 115 patients. The median age was 72 years (range, 43-95 years). Only 59 patients (51.3 %) were treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and 52 patients (45.2 %) were treated with gemcitabine and carboplatin. The median number of cycles was three (1-8), and the percentage of patients who discontinued chemotherapy due to progressive disease was 80.3%, 64.0%, and 86.4% in those receiving one to three, four, and five or more cycles, respectively. Moreover, no difference in overall survival was observed between patients who received four cycles and those who received five or more cycles at both univariate and multivariate levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that five or more cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not prolong overall survival compared with four cycles, suggesting that four cycles of chemotherapy might be sufficient, considering the new treatment strategy involving switch maintenance with avelumab.

Impact of the objective response to and number of cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma on overall survival of patients treated with pembrolizumab

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of the number of cycles and objective response to chemotherapy on overall survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study included 755 patients from 59 institutions with advanced, chemoresistant urothelial carcinoma who received pembrolizumab. The associations of the overall survival with the number of cycles and best objective response were investigated using Cox multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 391 patients received standard first-line chemotherapy and pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment, and were included in the final analysis. Of the 391 patients, 185 received less than four cycles, 134 received four to six cycles and 72 received more than six cycles of first-line chemotherapy. An objective response (complete or partial response) to chemotherapy was observed in 145 patients (37.1%). Univariate analysis showed that the overall survival of patients who received more than six cycles or responded to chemotherapy (complete or partial response) was significantly longer than that of patients who received less than four cycles or did not respond to chemotherapy (stable or progressive disease). At multivariate levels, no correlations were observed between overall survival and the number of cycles of or the response to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic benefit of pembrolizumab can be expected irrespective of the objective response to and number of cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy.

Pre-pembrolizumab neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) predicts the efficacy of second-line pembrolizumab treatment in urothelial cancer regardless of the pre-chemo NLR

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was reported to be associated with prognosis of urothelial cancer (UC) patients receiving systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy. However, it has not been elucidated how preceding first-line chemotherapy affects NLR and subsequent second-line pembrolizumab treatment. This multicenter study analyzed 458 patients with metastatic UC who received first-line chemotherapy and second-line pembrolizumab with regard to pre-chemotherapy and pre-pembrolizumab NLR in association with the efficacy of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab treatment. NLR was increased in 47% while decreased in 53% of patients before and after first-line chemotherapy. High pre-chemotherapy NLR (≥ 3) was significantly associated with unfavorable overall (OS, P = 0.0001) and progression-free (P < 0.0001) survivals after first-line chemotherapy. However, pre-chemotherapy NLR showed only modest influence on radiological response and survival after second-line pembrolizumab treatment, whereas pre-pembrolizumab NLR showed higher association. NLR decrease was associated with partial response or greater objective response by first-line chemotherapy, while NLR increase was associated with higher patient age. In conclusion, immediate pre-chemotherapy and pre-pembrolizumab NLR was significantly associated with efficacy of the following treatment, respectively. However, even patients with high pre-chemotherapy NLR achieved favorable OS if they had their NLR reduced by chemotherapy, whereas those with high pre-chemotherapy NLR yielded unfavorable OS if they had their NLR remained high after chemotherapy, suggesting that chemotherapy may have differential effect on the efficacy of subsequent pembrolizumab treatment in UC patients.

The effect of number of treatment cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy on maximum radiological response in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The number of cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy associated with the maximum tumor response in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma is not yet established. We investigated the association between the number of cycles and the maximum radiological response of first-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 167 patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy between May 2003 and December 2020. The primary outcome was estimating the number of cycles associated with the maximum radiological response and progression disease rate within the 6 cycles. The radiological response was evaluated by the RECIST v1.1. The secondary outcomes included the difference in radiological response rate and the impact on overall survival between the cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based regimens.

RESULTS

The maximum radiological response was -22% at Cycles 2. It was significantly decreased at Cycles 4 (-15%) compared with Cycles 2 (P < 0.001). The progression disease rate within the first 2, 4, and 6 cycles were 21% and 63%, and 84%, respectively. Radiological response was no significant difference between the cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based regimens. However, it was significantly decreased in the carboplatin-based regimen at Cycles 4 (-17%) compared with Cycles 2 (-22%; P = 0.004). Background-adjusted overall survival was not significantly different in between the cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based regimens (hazard rate 1.27; P = 0.337).

CONCLUSION

The maximum radiological response was -22% at Cycles 2. The radiological response was significantly different between Cycle 2 and 4. More than half of patients had disease progression within the first 4 cycles.

Avelumab first-line maintenance in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Applying clinical trial findings to clinical practice

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management.

Management of Clinically Regional Node-Positive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinically regional node-positive (cN+) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder requires a multi-modal management approach amidst growing recognition that it represents a spectrum of disease. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence for the natural history, evaluation, and management of clinically regional node-positive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, highlighting recent changes in lymph node staging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite advances in techniques, cross-sectional imaging remains relatively insensitive for the detection of lymph node metastases. Recent changes to nodal staging that distinguish between cN1, cN2-3, and non-regional lymph node metastases reflect an increasing understanding that node-positive disease is heterogeneous and its management must be individualized according to nodal staging. Systemic therapy remains the initial management strategy, either alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, with choice and sequencing of agents extrapolated from studies of metastatic disease. Consolidative radical cystectomy is an option for patients with disease response to upfront systemic therapy, and several series demonstrate a subset of patients with favorable oncologic outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy and radical cystectomy as local therapy remains an important evidence gap. Future studies that identify predictive biomarkers will help inform optimal choice of systemic therapy. The management of clinically regional node-positive disease requires a multimodal approach comprising both systemic and local therapy, tailored to the patient and to disease response. While choice of systemic therapy will be informed by ongoing studies in patients with metastatic disease, including the elucidation of predictive biomarkers, the comparative effectiveness of local therapies remains an important evidence gap.

Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance.

METHODS

In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety.

RESULTS

Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

Timing of changing therapy from gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy based on real-world data of advanced urothelial carcinoma

Cisplatin-based systemic chemotherapy is the gold-standard approach for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, the optimal number of cycles is still unclear. The current study retrospectively assessed the clinical outcome in patients who received gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer to clarify the timing of switching from GC therapy. A total of 61 patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who received first-line chemotherapy with GC were retrospectively reviewed at National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center between June 2009 and August 2017. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The significance of associations between the clinical parameters and OS was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The median cycle number for GC chemotherapy was 4. The median PFS and OS of all cases was 5.2 and 14.1 months, respectively. The multivariate analyses revealed that a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3.0 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.521, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.179-5.624; P=0.017) and best response to GC therapy of CR+PR (HR 0.110; 95% CI=0.028-0.411; P<0.001) were independent prognostic factors. However, the number of GC cycles (≤4 vs. >4) was not an independent prognostic factor (P=0.387). The current retrospective study indicated that changes to therapy should be considered at an early stage for cases with a therapeutic effect of SD or less, regardless of the number of GC therapy cycles.