Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer

BACKGROUND

No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

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.

Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial

BACKGROUND

Erdafitinib is an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in patients with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (FGFRalt) who progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy. FGFR-altered tumours are enriched in luminal 1 subtype and may have limited clinical benefit from anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] treatment. This cohort in the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study assessed erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-(L)1-naive patients with mUC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years with unresectable advanced/mUC, with select FGFRalt, disease progression on one prior treatment, and who were anti-PD-(L)1-naive were randomized 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib 8 mg once daily with pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg or pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population (median follow-up 33 months) comprised 175 and 176 patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between erdafitinib and pembrolizumab [median 10.9 versus 11.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.51; P = 0.18]. Median PFS for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab was 4.4 and 2.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.70-1.10). ORR was 40.0% and 21.6% (relative risk 1.85; 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and median duration of response was 4.3 and 14.4 months for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. 64.7% and 50.9% of patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms had ≥1 grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs); 5 (2.9%) and 12 (6.9%) patients, respectively, had AEs that led to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Erdafitinib and pembrolizumab had similar median OS in this anti-PD-(L)1-naive, FGFR-altered mUC population. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were better than assumed and aligned with previous reports in non- FGFR-altered populations. Safety results were consistent with the known profiles for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab in this patient population.

Progress in systemic therapy for advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma

Despite recent advances, advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma (aUC) remains incurable, with 5-year survival rates of approximately 10%. Platinum-based chemotherapy has a major role as first-line therapy for most patients with aUC. The approval of the anti-PD-L1 antibody avelumab as maintenance therapy for patients without initial disease progression on platinum-based chemotherapy is an important development that has improved the survival outcomes of patients with this disease. Otherwise, the use of first-line immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 has been restricted to patients who are ineligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. Other important developments include the FDA-accelerated approval of first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for patients ineligible to receive cisplatin and the availability of FGFR inhibitors, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan for subsequent lines of therapy. Several research questions remain unaddressed including the lack of adequate biomarkers, how to assign priority to the different treatment options for individual patients and which agents can be effective as monotherapies. The future is promising with the emergence of modalities such as antibody-drug conjugate-like drugs, next-generation ICIs, bispecific antibodies and cellular therapies. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of systemic therapy for patients with aUC and provide insights into the unmet needs.

Exploratory analyses of treatment subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status and according to PD-L1 expression in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial

PURPOSE

Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC).

METHODS

JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay).

RESULTS

No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia.

INTERPRETATION

In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Comprehensive Clinical Subgroup Analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Kanamycin treatment in the pre-symptomatic stage of a Drosophila PD model prevents the onset of non-motor alterations

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor alterations, which is preceded by a prodromal stage where non-motor symptoms are observed. Over recent years, it has become evident that this disorder involves other organs that communicate with the brain like the gut. Importantly, the microbial community that lives in the gut plays a key role in this communication, the so-called microbiota-gut-brain axis. Alterations in this axis have been associated to several disorders including PD. Here we proposed that the gut microbiota is different in the presymptomatic stage of a Drosophila model for PD, the Pink1^B9 mutant fly, as compared to that observed in control animals. Our results show this is the case: there is basal dysbiosis in mutant animals evidenced by substantial difference in the composition of midgut microbiota in 8-9 days old Pink1^B9 mutant flies as compared with control animals. Further, we fed young adult control and mutant flies kanamycin and analyzed motor and non-motor behavioral parameters in these animals. Data show that kanamycin treatment induces the recovery of some of the non-motor parameters altered in the pre-motor stage of the PD fly model, while there is no substantial change in locomotor parameters recorded at this stage. On the other hand, our results show that feeding young animals the antibiotic, results in a long-lasting improvement of locomotion in control flies. Our data support that manipulations of gut microbiota in young animals could have beneficial effects on PD progression and age-dependent motor impairments.

Disease-free Survival Analysis for Patients with High-risk Muscle-invasive Urothelial Carcinoma from the Randomized CheckMate 274 Trial by PD-L1 Combined Positive Score and Tumor Cell Score

BACKGROUND

The CheckMate 274 trial demonstrated improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after radical surgery in both the intent-to-treat population and the subset with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1%.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze DFS by combined positive score (CPS), which is based on PD-L1 expression in both tumor and immune cells.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We randomized a total of 709 patients 1:1 to nivolumab 240 mg or placebo every 2 wk intravenously for ≤1 yr of adjuvant treatment.

INTERVENTION

Nivolumab 240 mg.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Primary endpoints were DFS in the intent-to-treat population and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1% using the tumor cell (TC) score. CPS was determined retrospectively from previously stained slides. Tumor samples with both quantifiable CPS and TC were analyzed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 629 patients evaluable for CPS and TC, 557 (89%) had CPS ≥1, 72 (11%) had CPS <1, 249 (40%) had TC ≥1%, and 380 (60%) had TC <1%. Among patients with TC <1%, 81% (n = 309) had CPS ≥1. DFS was improved with nivolumab versus placebo for patients with TC ≥1% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.71), those with CPS ≥1 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78), and patients with both TC <1% and CPS ≥1 (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99).

CONCLUSION

More patients had CPS ≥1 than TC ≥1%, and most patients who had TC <1% had CPS ≥1. In addition, patients with CPS ≥1 experienced improved DFS with nivolumab. These results may, in part, explain the mechanisms underlying a benefit with adjuvant nivolumab even in patients who had both TC <1% and CPS ≥1.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied survival time without cancer recurrence (disease-free survival; DFS) for patients treated with nivolumab versus placebo after surgery to remove the bladder or components of the urinary tract for bladder cancer in the CheckMate 274 trial. We assessed the impact of levels of the protein PD-L1 expressed either on tumor cells (tumor cell score; TC) or on both tumor cells and immune cells surrounding the tumor (combined positive score; CPS). DFS was impoved with nivolumab versus placebo for patients with TC ≥1%, CPS ≥1, and for patients with both TC <1% and CPS ≥1. This analysis may help physicians understand which patients would benefit most from treatment with nivolumab.

Avelumab First-Line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results From the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Trial After ≥2 Years of Follow-Up

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Initial results from the phase III JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02603432) showed that avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free after 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance treatment is now a standard of care for aUC. Here, we report updated data with ≥ 2 years of follow-up in all patients, including OS (primary end point), PFS, safety, and additional novel analyses. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). At data cutoff (June 4, 2021), median follow-up was 38.0 months and 39.6 months, respectively; 67 patients (19.5%) had received ≥2 years of avelumab treatment. OS remained longer with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone in all patients (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91]; 2-sided P = .0036). Investigator-assessed PFS analyses also favored avelumab. Longer-term safety was consistent with previous analyses; no new safety signals were identified with longer treatment duration. In conclusion, longer-term follow-up continues to show clinically meaningful efficacy benefits with avelumab 1L maintenance plus BSC versus BSC alone in patients with aUC. An interactive visualization of data reported in this article is available.

Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?

In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase II Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Savolitinib and Durvalumab in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cancer (CALYPSO)

PURPOSE

Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated.

METHODS

This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status).

RESULTS

Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction).

CONCLUSION

The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

Targeting FGFR3 alterations with adjuvant infigratinib in invasive urothelial carcinoma: the phase III PROOF 302 trial

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptible FGFR3 alterations (activating mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements), ≤120 days following radical surgery and ineligible for/or refusing cisplatin-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receive either oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary end point: centrally determined disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival and safety/tolerability; exploratory end points: correlative biomarker analysis, quality-of-life and infigratinib pharmacokinetics.

Plain language summary of results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study: avelumab maintenance treatment for advanced urothelial cancer

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JAVELIN BLADDER 100 STUDY?

In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?

Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition Mediates Resistance to Maintenance Therapy with Vinflunine in Advanced Urothelial Cell Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the first-line treatment for advanced urothelial cell carcinoma (aUCC). After first-line treatment, we previously showed that maintenance therapy with vinflunine improves progression-free survival. However, some patients are resistant to vinflunine and the specific mechanisms of resistance in aUCC are unclear. We analyzed the genomic landscape and the biological processes potentially related to vinflunine activity and found that epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays a pivotal role as a resistance mechanism. In experiments with cell lines, curcumin reversed EMT and sensitized cells to vinflunine. We suggest that EMT mediates resistance to vinflunine and that the reversion of this process could enhance the effect of vinflunine in aUCC patients.

Abstract

In the phase II MAJA trial, maintenance therapy with vinflunine resulted in longer progression-free survival compared to best supportive care in advanced urothelial cell carcinoma (aUCC) patients who did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. However, despite an initial benefit observed in some patients, unequivocal resistance appears which underlying mechanisms are presently unknown. We have performed gene expression and functional enrichment analyses to shed light on the discovery of these underlying resistance mechanisms. Differential gene expression profile of eight patients with poor outcome and nine with good outcome to vinflunine administered in the MAJA trial were analyzed. RNA was isolated from tumor tissue and gene expression was assessed by microarray. Differential expression was determined with linear models for microarray data. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) was used for the functional classification of the genes. In vitro functional studies were performed using UCC cell lines. Hierarchical clustering showed a differential gene expression pattern between patients with good and poor outcome to vinflunine treatment. GSEA identified epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) as the top negatively enriched hallmark in patients with good outcome. In vitro analyses showed that the polyphenol curcumin downregulated EMT markers and sensitized UCC cells to vinflunine. We conclude that EMT mediates resistance to vinflunine and suggest that the reversion of this process could enhance the effect of vinflunine in aUCC patients.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear.

METHODS

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

Efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with initial or late progression with nivolumab: Updated analysis of a tailored approach in advanced renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC)

4576

Background: TITAN-RCC uses a tailored immunotherapy approach in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), starting with nivolumab (nivo) induction followed by nivo + ipilimumab (ipi) as immunotherapeutic “boost” in non-responders. Patients with initial partial or complete response (PR/CR) continued with nivo maintenance but received later “boosts” for progressive disease (PD). Here we report updated results focusing on the efficacy of nivo+ipi in patients with initial PD vs. initial responders with later PD. Methods: Patients with IMDC intermediate and poor risk advanced clear cell RCC were recruited between OCT 2016 and DEC 2018. Patients started with nivo 240 mg Q2W induction. Patients with early significant PD (week 8) or non-responders at week 16 received 2-4 nivo+ipi “boost” cycles. Responders (PR/CR) to nivo monotherapy continued with maintenance but could receive nivo+ipi for later PD. The primary endpoint is confirmed investigator assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST in first line (1L) and second line (2L). Secondary endpoints included activity of nivo monotherapy, remission rate with nivo+ipi “boost”, safety and overall survival (OS). Results: 109 1L and 98 2L (after TKI) patients were analyzed for efficacy. Median age was 65 years (range 20-87). 71 % were intermediate and 25 % poor risk. Confirmed ORR with nivo monotherapy was 28 % for 1L and 17 % for 2L. After a median follow-up of 12.8 months best overall response after nivo induction ± nivo+ipi was 36 % in 1L and 30 % in 2L. Of all patients, 38 received nivo+ipi for stable disease (SD) up to week 16, with 1 (3 %), 4 (11 %) and 26 (68 %) achieving CR, PR and SD, respectively. 28 patients in 1L and 43 in 2L were boosted with nivo+ipi for initial PD. Of these, 3 (11 %) and 8 (29 %) achieved PR and SD, respectively, in 1L, whereas 3 (7.0 %) achieved CR, 6 (14 %) PR and 13 (30 %) SD in 2L. 16 and 10 patients received “boosts” later than week 16 for PD during nivo maintenance in 1L and 2L, respectively. Thereof, 3 (19 %) achieved PR and 5 (31 %) SD in 1L, whereas 2 (20 %) achieved PR and 3 (30 %) SD in 2L. Progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95 % CI 3.7 – 10.1) and 3.7 months (95 % CI 2.0 - 4.5) in 1L and 2L, respectively. OS was 27.2 months (95 % CI 19.9 – not estimable (NE)) in 1L and 20.2 months (95 % CI 15.6 – NE) in 2L. Treatment-related adverse events will be presented. Conclusions: Our tailored approach with nivo+ipi “boosts” results in improved response rates compared to nivo monotherapy. Our updated analysis suggests that almost half of the patients receiving “boosts” for PD improve to either PR/CR (18 %) or SD (30 %), irrespective of initial or later progression with nivo. Clinical trial information: NCT02917772. [Table: see text]

Phase II trial of durvalumab plus tremelimumab with concurrent radiotherapy (RT) in patients (pts) with localized muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with a selective bladder preservation approach: IMMUNOPRESERVE-SOGUG trial

4505

Background: Bladder-preserving combined-modality therapies constitute an alternative to radical cystectomy for selected pts with MIBC. In preclinical studies, combination of radiation and dual checkpoint blockade appears to activate non-redundant immune mechanisms, potentiating antitumor activity. The purpose of the present study is to explore feasibility, toxicity and activity of this approach in MIBC. Methods: Pts with localized MIBC in clinical stages T2-4a N0 M0, ECOG 0-1, without contraindications to immunotherapy, who either wished for bladder preservation or were ineligible for cystectomy, were included in this phase II study. Treatment consisted of initial transurethral resection (TUR) of the tumor, followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg i.v. plus tremelimumab 75 mg i.v., every 4 weeks for 3 doses. Normofractionated external-beam RT was started 2 weeks later, at doses of 46 Gy to minor pelvis and 64-66 Gy to bladder. Pts with either residual or relapsed MIBC were offered salvage cystectomy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) defined as absence of MIBC at post-treatment tumor site biopsy. A 2-stage sequential design was used (CR rate P0=5, P1=0.7, α=0.10, β=0.20) requiring at least 6 CR in the first 12 pts to expand to a second cohort of 20 pts. Results: From 1/2019 to 8/2020, 32 pts were enrolled at 6 centers. Median age was 71 years (49-91). PS was 0 in 24 pts,1 in 8. 25 were males. Clinical stage was T2 in 28 pts, T3 in 3 and T4a in 1. All pts received at least two immunotherapy cycles. The median dose of RT administered was 64 Gy (60-65). CR at post-treatment biopsy was documented in 26 (81%) pts, 2 pts had residual MIBC and 4 pts were not evaluated due to rejection (1), clinical impairment (1), death from COVID 19 (1) and a suspected treatment-related death from peritonitis (1). After a median follow up of 6.1 months (2.5 - 20.1), 2 pts underwent salvage cystectomy because of MIBC and T1 relapses, respectively. The estimated 6-months rates for disease-free survival (DFS) with bladder intact, DFS and overall survival were 76% (95%CI, 61%-95%), 80% (95%CI, 66%-98%) and 93% (95%CI, 85%-100%), respectively. A total of 31 (97%) pts experienced adverse events related to RT and/or immunotherapy, with diarrhea (41%) and urinary disorders (37.5%) as the most frequent. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy were reported in 31% pts, being the most frequent gastrointestinal toxicity (12.5%), acute kidney failure (6%) and hepatitis (6%). Conclusions: A combined-modality approach including durvalumab + tremelimumab with concurrent RT is feasible and safe, showing high efficacy in terms of response and eliciting bladder preservation in a large number of pts. Further research on this approach as an alternative to cystectomy is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03702179.

Quality of life, functioning, and symptoms in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma from EV-301: A randomized phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy

4539

Background: In EV-301, a randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03474107), enfortumab vedotin (EV), a Nectin-4–directed therapy, significantly prolonged median overall survival by ̃3.9 months and reduced the risk of death by 30% compared with standard chemotherapy (SC; docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine) in patients with previously treated locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Understanding patient perspectives and experiences is important to further contextualize the benefits/risks of EV. Here, we report key prespecified quality-of-life (QoL) endpoints, a secondary objective of EV-301. Methods: Patients completed the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, on Day 1 of each week for the first 12 weeks, and then every 12 weeks until discontinuation. The QLQ-C30 assessed functional domains, symptom scales/items, financial impact, and overall health/QoL. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize instrument compliance rates and scores; mixed model repeated measures were used to evaluate changes from baseline over time. Logistic regressions were conducted to assess confirmed improvement rates, defined as clinically meaningful improvement (predefined per domain) over two subsequent visits. Results: Of the 608 randomized patients (EV, n = 301; SC, n = 307), 77.3% were male, median age was 68 (range: 30-88), and 30.9% had liver metastasis. Questionnaire compliance rates at baseline were ̃90% in both groups; during the study, average rates were 70.2% (EV) and 66.9% (SC). Baseline QLQ-C30 scores were similar between groups. At Week 12, scores on the global health status (GHS) scale were similar between groups (EV: -2.8, SC: -5.0; P=.2429), but SC was associated with numerically greater deterioration and more variability in QoL over the first 12 weeks. Patients receiving EV had significant reduction in pain symptoms (EV: -5.62, SC: +0.11; adjusted difference: -5.73, P<.05), but significant worsening of appetite loss (EV: +8.55, SC: +1.26; adjusted difference: 7.29, P<.05) compared with SC. Other symptom scores were not significantly different between groups. Higher proportions of patients on EV vs SC had significant confirmed improvements across all functioning domains (role, physical, emotional, social, cognitive), GHS, and several symptom scales (pain, fatigue, dyspnea, constipation). The greatest difference in improvement was reported for pain (EV: 51.6%, SC: 28.8%; OR = 2.76[1.81, 4.22]). Conclusions: Compared with SC, patients receiving EV had numerically less deterioration and variability in QoL during the first 12 weeks of treatment. More patients in the EV group had improvements over SC in 10 of 15 QLQ-C30 domains; improvement in pain showed the largest benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03474107.

Clinical activity of durvalumab and savolitinib in MET-driven, metastatic papillary renal cancer

4511

Background: Savolitinib is a potent and selective MET inhibitor with activity in MET-driven papillary renal cancer (PRC). Durvalumab is a PD-L1 inhibitor which has been tested in combination with savolitinib in metastatic PRC with response rates of 29% (12/41). Here we describe the efficacy of this combination in MET-driven metastatic PRC. Methods: This single arm phase I/II trial explored durvalumab (1500mg Q4W) and savolitinib (600mg OD) together in metastatic PRC, with a 4wk savolitinib run in. Biomarker analysis results were compared with responses to treatment as planned in the protocol. The analysis presented here focuses on those patients with MET DNA alterations (central analysis:chromosome 7 gain/MET or HGF amplification/MET kinase domain mutations). Confirmed response rate (RR) (RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), tolerability (CTCAE v4.03) and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Results: 42 patients were enrolled in the metastatic papillary cohort, of which 41 patients received treatment. The median follow up was 26.8 months. The confirmed RR was 29% (12/41) and median PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI 2.5-10.0). 14/41 (34%) of these patients had MET-driven disease. 71% (10/14) of MET-driven patients had not previously received systemic therapy and 7% (1/14) were PD-L1 positive. IMDC good, intermediate, and poor risk disease occurred in 36% (5/14), 57% (8/14), and 7% (1/14) of MET-driven patients respectively. Confirmed RR in MET-driven patients was 57% (8/14) with duration of response at 9.4 months (95% CI 3.9-Not reached [NR]). Median PFS and OS in MET-driven patients were 10.5 months (95% CI 2.9-15.7) and 27.4 months (95% CI 7.3-NR) respectively. No new safety signals were seen. Conclusions: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab has clinical activity in MET-driven PRC. A randomised phase III study is planned based upon these data. Clinical trial information: NCT02819596.

Patient outcomes following disease progression with enfortumab-vedotin (EV) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)

e16516

Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) is an antibody drug conjugate (ADC), licensed for use in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), following disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy (ChT) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A patient cohort now exists with disease progression following EV with no guidance for subsequent treatment. This retrospective observational study assessed patient outcomes post EV progression. Methods: Patients were identified from 3 centres in Europe (St Bartholomew’s Hospital, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocio and Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre). Data was collected regarding treatments prior to and post EV, length of EV treatment and overall survival (OS) post EV progression. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses comparing survival outcomes stratified by treatment post EV progression were performed in SPSS (Version 27). Results: All 24 patients had received both an ICI and ChT prior to receiving EV. 10 patients received further treatment following disease progression on EV. 8 patients received ChT (6 patients platinum based, 1 patient paclitaxel, 1 patient vinflunine), 1 patient received radical radiotherapy and 1 patient received derazantinib. No patient received further ICI therapy post EV progression. 2 patients had achieved complete radiological response with EV and had no evidence of disease progression. Point bi-serial correlation showed no significant association between length of EV treatment and receiving further treatment post disease progression on EV. There was also no significant association between pre EV survival length and further treatment post disease progression on EV. Survival analysis (Kaplain-Meier, Mantel-Cox Log Rank) revealed a statistically significant difference in mean OS. Mean OS was 1 month in patients who received no further treatment vs 7 months in patients who received treatment post progression on EV (Chi-Square 16.569, p = 0.000). Conclusions: Less than half of patients who progressed on EV received subsequent treatment. Patients who did receive treatment had significantly increased OS. There is a clear gap in literature and evidence-based guidance for treatment following EV progression and further studies are required with larger samples accounting for confounding factors to further evaluate best practise post disease progression on EV.

Avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC): Analysis of time to end of next-line therapy in JAVELIN Bladder 100

4525

Background: Avelumab 1L maintenance is approved in various countries for patients (pts) with advanced UC that has not progressed with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy based on significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) seen with avelumab + BSC vs BSC alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. OS was prolonged despite the more frequent use of subsequent anticancer therapy in the BSC alone arm (42.3% in the avelumab + BSC arm vs 61.7% in the BSC alone arm), most commonly with immune checkpoint inhibitors (6.3% vs 43.7%, respectively). To further characterize the efficacy benefits of avelumab 1L maintenance, we report a post hoc analysis of the time to end of next-line therapy (for any reason) in the randomized trial population. Methods: In JAVELIN Bladder 100 (NCT02603432), eligible pts had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without disease progression with 4 to 6 cycles of 1L gemcitabine + either cisplatin or carboplatin. The primary endpoint was OS from randomization, assessed in 2 populations: all pts and pts with PD-L1+ tumors (Ventana SP263). In this exploratory analysis, time from randomization until end of next-line treatment received after first progression (due to death or discontinuation) was assessed. Results: A total of 700 pts were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 1L maintenance + BSC or BSC alone. Among all randomized pts, time to end of next-line therapy was prolonged in the avelumab + BSC arm vs the BSC alone arm (Table). Time to end of next-line therapy was also longer in the avelumab + BSC arm vs the BSC alone arm in pts with PD-L1+ tumors (n = 358) or PD-L1− tumors (n = 270). Conclusions: Pts who received avelumab 1L maintenance + BSC had prolonged time to end of next-line treatment compared with those who received BSC alone, irrespective of PD-L1 status. These data provide further evidence of the efficacy of a maintenance approach with avelumab in pts with advanced UC that has not progressed with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02603432. [Table: see text]

Current Therapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a highly lethal malignancy in the metastatic state. Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens have been the backbone treatment for patients with advanced UC in the first-line setting. However, a large subset of patients are suboptimal candidates for these combinations owing to poor renal function and/or other comorbidities. Patients who are unable to tolerate or who progress after frontline platinum chemotherapy face a poor outcome. Recent insights into UC biology and immunology are being translated into new therapies for metastatic UC (mUC) including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), erdafitinib, a FGFR inhibitor, and antibody drug conjugates (ADC) such enfortumab vedotin.

Preliminary analysis of a phase II, multicenter, randomized, active-control study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eganelisib (IPI 549) in combination with nivolumab compared to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

436

Background: Inhibition of the PD-1 pathway has demonstrated clinical benefit in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC); however, response rates of 15% to 29% highlight the need for more effective therapies, especially for PD-L1- patients. Eganelisib is a first-in-class, novel, oral agent which selectively inhibits PI3K-γ, with the goal of improving the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with mUC who progressed on > 1 platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were CPI naïve were enrolled. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive eganelisib in combination with nivolumab (EN) or placebo with nivolumab (PN). Pts were stratified by baseline circulating monocytic myeloid derived suppressor cells (mMDSC) level. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 in pts with high baseline mMDSC levels. Other endpoints included ORR, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all pts and PD-L1 +/- pts. Results: We report preliminary data (as of 9/1/2020) for the first 49 pts with 33 randomized to receive EN and 16 PN. Preliminary ORR/PFS is presented in the table below. Except for the mMDSC high subgroup, ORR and PFS were improved in the EN arm compared to the PN arm. The duration of exposure was a median of 15 weeks for EN and 11 for PN. Most common all-Gr AEs (EN vs PN %) were pyrexia (33 vs 0), decreased appetite (30 vs 19), pruritis (24 vs 6), rash (24 vs 6), asthenia (21 vs 31), and transaminase elevation (21 vs 6). Most common Gr≥3 AEs (EN vs PN %) include hepatotoxicity (15 vs 0), transaminase elevation (12 vs 6), and rash (9 vs 0). Following an early safety review, eganelisib dose was reduced from 40 to 30 mg, resulting in a reduction of hepatic AEs. Conclusions: Preliminary data demonstrates that the combination of eganelisib, once reduced to 30 mg, and nivolumab was well tolerated with hepatic and skin-related toxicities more common in the EN arm. When compared to PN, the combination demonstrated an improved ORR and PFS, especially in the PD-L1- subset. Updated efficacy, including PFS and OS, safety and translational data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03980041 . [Table: see text]

First results from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial of adjuvant nivolumab vs placebo in patients who underwent radical surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC)

391

Background: The standard of care (SOC) for patients (pts) with MIUC is radical surgery ± cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemo), but many pts are cisplatin-ineligible. There is no conclusive evidence supporting adjuvant chemo in pts who did not receive neoadjuvant chemo and in those with residual disease after neoadjuvant cisplatin. This phase 3 trial of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) vs placebo (PBO) in pts with MIUC after radical surgery ± neoadjuvant cisplatin (CheckMate 274) aims to address an unmet need in these pts. We report the initial results. Methods: This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of NIVO vs PBO in pts with high-risk MIUC (bladder, ureter, or renal pelvis) after radical surgery. Pts were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg Q2W or PBO for ≤ 1 year of adjuvant treatment. Pts had radical surgery within 120 days ± neoadjuvant cisplatin or were ineligible/declined cisplatin-based chemo, evidence of UC at high risk of recurrence per pathologic staging, were disease-free by imaging, and ECOG PS ≤ 1. Primary endpoints: disease-free survival (DFS) in all randomized pts (ITT population) and in pts with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%. DFS was stratified by nodal status, prior neoadjuvant cisplatin, and PD-L1 status. Non–urothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS) in ITT pts and in pts with PD-L ≥ 1% is a secondary endpoint. Safety is an exploratory endpoint. Results: In total, 353 pts were randomized to NIVO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 140) and 356 pts to PBO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 142). The primary endpoint of DFS was met in ITT pts (median follow-up, 20.9 mo for NIVO; 19.5 mo for PBO) and in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. DFS and NUTRFS were improved with NIVO vs PBO in both populations (Table). DFS improvement with NIVO was generally consistent across subgroups. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 17.9% and 7.2% of pts in the NIVO and PBO arms, respectively. Conclusions: NIVO demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs PBO for MIUC after radical surgery, both in ITT pts and pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. AEs were manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results support adjuvant NIVO as a new SOC for pts with MIUC with high risk for recurrence despite neoadjuvant chemo or those ineligible for and/or declining cisplatin-based chemo. Clinical trial information: NCT02632409 . Research Sponsor: Bristol Myers Squibb[Table: see text]

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.).

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A 2020 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, and Future Perspectives on Systemic Therapy

CONTEXT

To improve the prognosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), clinicians have used neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) before or after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Despite some new data, the evidence remains mixed on their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To update the current evidence on the role of NAC and AC for UTUC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched for all studies investigating NAC or AC for UTUC in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings up to February 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

For NAC, the pooled pathologic complete response rate (≤ypT0N0M0) was 11% (n = 811) and pathologic partial response rate (≤ypT1N0M0) was 43% (n = 869), both across 14 studies. Across six studies, the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.59, p <  0.001) for overall survival (OS) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.24-0.61, p <  0.001) for cancer-specific survival (CSS) in favor of NAC. The evidence for NAC is at best level 2. As for AC, there was a benefit in OS (pooled HR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92, p =  0.004 across 14 studies and 7983 patients), CSS (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.91, p =  0.001 across 18 studies and 5659 patients), and disease-free survival (DFS; pooled HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.70 across four studies and 602 patients). While most studies were retrospective (level 2 evidence), there were two prospective randomized trials providing level 1 evidence. There are currently four phase 2 trials on neoadjuvant immunotherapy and three phase 2 trials on adjuvant immunotherapy for UTUC.

CONCLUSIONS

NAC for UTUC confers a favorable pathologic response and tumor downstaging rate, and an OS and CSS benefit compared with RNU alone. AC confers an OS, CSS, and DFS benefit compared with RNU alone. Currently, the evidence for AC appears stronger (with positive level 1 evidence) than that for NAC (at best level 2 evidence). Limited data are available for chemoimmunotherapy approaches, but preliminary data support an active research investment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

After a comprehensive search of the latest studies examining the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial cancer, the pooled evidence shows that perioperative chemotherapy was beneficial for prolonging survival; however, the evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy was stronger than that for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.