Sequential therapies for advanced urothelial cancer: Hope meets new challenges

A dramatic change in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinomas (UC) occurred in the last 3 years, initially with the development of several check-point inhibitors, for second and first-line therapy. More recently, the approval of anti-FGFR (Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor) and anti-nectin-4 inhibitors based on phase 2 studies in refractory disease, and the preliminary results of 3 randomized phase 3 trials combining chemotherapy and immunotherapy in first-line as well as using maintenance immunotherapy after chemotherapy induction, created a new paradigm in the treatment of metastatic disease. In this review, we will explore the new classes of agents and how they could be incorporated in the clinical practice as well as the results of recently presented randomized studies, guiding oncologists on the possible sequences for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Epidemiology and treatment patterns for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a systematic literature review and gap analysis

BACKGROUND: Several immuno-oncology (IO) agents targeting programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) are approved second-line therapy options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy or first-line options in patients ineligible for cisplatin whose tumors express PD-L1 or for any platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression levels. However, literature on the epidemiology of la/mUC is limited, and real-world treatment patterns are not well established, especially with respect to therapies used following IO. OBJECTIVES: To (a) report the epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma (UC) and la/mUC; (b) identify and summarize the published literature on la/mUC treatment patterns, including IO and post-IO treatment; and (c) identify evidence gaps. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using Cochrane dual-reviewer methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Literature databases and selected congress abstracts (2017-2018) were searched for retrospective studies published January 2013-August 2018 in English reporting epidemiological and treatment data (all lines of therapy) for adult patients with la/mUC. RESULTS: Among 6,584 database references and 1,832 congress abstracts screened, 45 publications (29 manuscripts, 1 poster, 15 abstracts; reporting 37 unique studies) were retained. All studies related to treatment patterns, and the majority were from the United States (n = 17), Japan (n = 8), and the United Kingdom (n = 5). Epidemiological data were not identified among the searches thus online registries were leveraged. Among the identified publications, 21 (20 unique) reported on cisplatin versus non-cisplatin regimens, 14 (8 unique) on IO, and 9 (7 unique) on vinflunine. Cisplatin use varied both within and among countries (ranging from 18.4% in 1 U.S. study to 87.9% in 1 Japanese study). The use of IO was higher in later lines of therapy, ranging from 1.4% to 7.9% as first-line therapy to 57.8% as second-line and 64.4% as third-line therapy. Among studies reporting IO discontinuation rates, 41.4%-71% of patients were reported to discontinue IO across the studies, and the median time to discontinuation ranged from 2.7 to 5.8 months. Only 25%-35.5% of patients received subsequent therapy following IO discontinuation; post-IO treatments varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Additional published data on the country-specific epidemiology of UC and la/mUC are needed, including rates of progression from early-stage disease to la/mUC. There was large variation in treatment rates, particularly cisplatin use, within and across countries. The few published real-world IO studies reported high levels of discontinuation with only a small percentage of patients receiving subsequent therapy. As IO therapies continue to be granted regulatory approval in countries outside the United States and novel therapies gain approval in the post-IO setting, the treatment paradigm for patients with la/mUC is shifting, and future studies with more recent data will be required. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Astellas/Seagen. Hepp is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen. Shah was a contractor for Astellas Pharma at the time of the study and owns stock in Pfizer. Smoyer is an employee and shareholder of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen. Vadagam was an employee of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen, at the time of the study. Parts of these data have been presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as Switch or Continuation Maintenance Therapy in Solid Tumors: Rationale and Current State

First-line chemotherapy for many solid tumors is limited by toxicity. There is a growing interest in maintenance therapy as a strategy for prolonging the benefits of first-line therapy while minimizing toxicity. Maintenance therapy can comprise either continuation of an agent given as part of the first-line regimen (continuation maintenance) or treatment with a new agent (switch maintenance). Maintenance therapy is already established in several solid tumors, including lung, breast, gastric, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment has been shown to prolong duration of response and overall survival, but efficacy is generally restricted to a limited proportion of patients with selected tumors. Thus, efforts are ongoing to determine whether the clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors can be extended using novel treatment schedules and settings, including maintenance therapy. Early- and late-phase clinical trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as switch and continuation maintenance in different tumors, and a range of phase III trials are ongoing. Interpretation of results requires consideration of trial designs, eligibility criteria, and primary endpoints, in addition to biomarker exploration, and assessment of quality of life and cost effectiveness. Findings from ongoing trials will help further define the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as maintenance therapy across a spectrum of solid tumors.