Selective PP2A Enhancement through Biased Heterotrimer Stabilization.

Impairment of protein phosphatases, including the family of serine/threonine phosphatases designated PP2A, is essential for the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cancer. The ability of PP2A to dephosphorylate hundreds of proteins is regulated by over 40 specificity-determining regulatory "B" subunits that compete for assembly and activation of heterogeneous PP2A heterotrimers. Here, we reveal how a small molecule, DT-061, specifically stabilizes the B56α-PP2A holoenzyme in a fully assembled, active state to dephosphorylate selective substrates, such as its well-known oncogenic target, c-Myc. Our 3.6 Å structure identifies molecular interactions between DT-061 and all three PP2A subunits that prevent dissociation of the active enzyme and highlight inherent mechanisms of PP2A complex assembly. Thus, our findings provide fundamental insights into PP2A complex assembly and regulation, identify a unique interfacial stabilizing mode of action for therapeutic targeting, and aid in the development of phosphatase-based therapeutics tailored against disease specific phospho-protein targets.

Nuclear Pores Promote Lethal Prostate Cancer by Increasing POM121-Driven E2F1, MYC, and AR Nuclear Import.

Nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) regulate nuclear-cytoplasmic transport, transcription, and genome integrity in eukaryotic cells. However, their functional roles in cancer remain poorly understood. We interrogated the evolutionary transcriptomic landscape of NPC components, nucleoporins (Nups), from primary to advanced metastatic human prostate cancer (PC). Focused loss-of-function genetic screen of top-upregulated Nups in aggressive PC models identified POM121 as a key contributor to PC aggressiveness. Mechanistically, POM121 promoted PC progression by enhancing importin-dependent nuclear transport of key oncogenic (E2F1, MYC) and PC-specific (AR-GATA2) transcription factors, uncovering a pharmacologically targetable axis that, when inhibited, decreased tumor growth, restored standard therapy efficacy, and improved survival in patient-derived pre-clinical models. Our studies molecularly establish a role of NPCs in PC progression and give a rationale for NPC-regulated nuclear import targeting as a therapeutic strategy for lethal PC. These findings may have implications for understanding how NPC deregulation contributes to the pathogenesis of other tumor types.

Perioperative Durvalumab with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Operable Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Adding perioperative immunotherapy may improve outcomes. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer to receive neoadjuvant durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by radical cystectomy and adjuvant durvalumab every 4 weeks for eight cycles (durvalumab group), or to receive neoadjuvant gemcitabine-cisplatin followed by radical cystectomy alone (comparison group). Event-free survival was one of two primary end points. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group and 530 to the comparison group. The estimated event-free survival at 24 months was 67.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.6 to 71.7) in the durvalumab group and 59.8% (95% CI, 55.4 to 64.0) in the comparison group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, not undergoing radical cystectomy, or death from any cause, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test). The estimated overall survival at 24 months was 82.2% (95% CI, 78.7 to 85.2) in the durvalumab group and 75.2% (95% CI, 71.3 to 78.8) in the comparison group (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93; P = 0.01 by stratified log-rank test). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 in severity occurred in 40.6% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 40.9% of those in the comparison group; treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in 0.6% in each group. Radical cystectomy was performed in 88.0% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 83.2% of those in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to significant improvements in event-free survival and overall survival as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. (Funded by AstraZeneca; NIAGARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03732677; EudraCT number, 2018-001811-59.).

Treatment of muscle-invasive and advanced bladder cancer in 2020.

Bladder cancer accounts for nearly 170,000 deaths worldwide annually. For over 4 decades, the systemic management of muscle-invasive and advanced bladder cancer has primarily consisted of platinum-based chemotherapy. Over the past 10 years, innovations in sequencing technologies have led to rapid genomic characterization of bladder cancer, deepening our understanding of bladder cancer pathogenesis and exposing potential therapeutic vulnerabilities. On the basis of its high mutational burden, immune checkpoint inhibitors were investigated in advanced bladder cancer, revealing durable responses in a subset of patients. These agents are now approved for several indications and highlight the changing treatment landscape of advanced bladder cancer. In addition, commonly expressed molecular targets were leveraged to develop targeted therapies, such as fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates. The molecular characterization of bladder cancer and the development of novel therapies also have stimulated investigations into optimizing treatment approaches for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Herein, the authors review the history of muscle-invasive and advanced bladder cancer management, highlight the important molecular characteristics of bladder cancer, describe the major advances in treatment, and offer future directions for therapeutic development.

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.).

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Phase 2 trial of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer previously treated with programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 blockade.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade has changed the landscape of treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer, but single-agent cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) blockade in metastatic urothelial cancer has been underexplored. A prior phase 2 trial of tremelimumab in PD-1/PD-L1-blockade naive patients with metastatic urothelial cancer revealed activity comparable to that observed with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade raising the hypothesis that these classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors might be non-cross-resistant. METHODS: The current phase 2 trial treated patients with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer with single-agent tremelimumab (750 mg intravenously every 28 days for up to 7 cycles). The primary end point was objective response rate. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and 24 patients were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 8.3%, composed of a total of two partial responses that lasted 10.9 and 24.0 months. Stable disease was observed in another 20.8% of patients, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months. Diarrhea occurred in 15 patients (58%), elevated hepatic transaminases occurred in seven patients (27%), and adrenal insufficiency occurred in two patients (8%); one patient died after experiencing immune-related hepatitis. CONCLUSIONS: High dose CTLA-4 blockade in patients with PD-1/PD-L1-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer has modest activity and is associated with treatment-related toxicity similar to prior reports.

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.).

CREST: phase III study of sasanlimab and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-naïve high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the standard of care for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). BCG in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors may yield greater anti-tumor activity compared with either agent alone. CREST is a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG for patients with BCG-naive high-risk NMIBC. Eligible participants are randomized to receive sasanlimab plus BCG (induction ± maintenance) or BCG alone for up to 25 cycles within 12 weeks of TURBT. The primary outcome is event-free survival. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy end points and safety. The target sample size is around 1000 participants.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common type of bladder cancer. Most people have surgery to remove the cancer cells while leaving the rest of the bladder intact. This is called transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT). For people with high-risk NMIBC, a medicine called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is placed directly inside the bladder after TURBT. A 'high risk' classification means that the cancer is more likely to spread or come back after treatment. Some people's cancer does not respond to BCG or returns after BCG treatment. Researchers are currently looking at whether BCG combined with other immunotherapies may prevent cancer growth more than BCG on its own. Immunotherapy helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. Sasanlimab is an immunotherapy medicine that is not yet approved to treat people with NMIBC. It is given as an injection under the skin. In this CREST study, researchers are looking at how safe and effective sasanlimab plus BCG is for people with high-risk NMIBC. Around 1000 people are taking part in CREST. They must have had TURBT 12 weeks or less before joining the study. Researchers want to know how long people live without certain events occurring, such as bladder cancer cells returning. A plain language summary of this article can be found as Supplementary Material. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04165317; 2019-003375-19 (EudraCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Biomarker Development Trial of Satraplatin in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SPARC trial, satraplatin, an oral platinum analogue, demonstrated anticancer activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Repeat biopsies are uncommon in mCRPC, limiting the feasibility of tissue-based biomarkers. This phase II study sought to evaluate the feasibility and utility of blood-based biomarkers to identify platinum-sensitive mCRPC. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC who had progressed on docetaxel were enrolled at a single center from 2011 to 2013. Subjects received satraplatin 80 mg/m2 by mouth daily on days 1-5 and prednisone 5 mg PO twice daily, on a 35-day cycle. Serial peripheral blood samples were collected for biomarker assessment. RESULTS: Thirteen docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patients were enrolled, with a median age of 69 years (range 54-77 years) and median PSA of 71.7 ng/mL (range 0.04-3057). Four of 13 patients (31%) responded to satraplatin (defined as a PSA decline of ≥30%). Responders demonstrated improved time to disease progression (206 vs. 35 days, HR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.02-0.24, P = .003). A 6-gene peripheral blood RNA signature and serum tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) levels were assessed as biomarkers, but neither was significantly associated with response to satraplatin. CONCLUSION: In this small series, one-third of mCRPC patients responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. Peripheral blood biomarker measurement is feasible in mCRPC, though the biomarkers we investigated were not associated with platinum response. Other biomarkers, such as DNA damage repair mutations, should be evaluated.

Precision Medicine in Urothelial Carcinoma: Current Markers to Guide Treatment and Promising Future Directions.

OPINION STATEMENT: The treatment landscape for urothelial cancer has changed dramatically in the last 10 years, with the approval of several new treatments. At the same time, profiling of individual tumors has become more commonplace with widespread availability of molecular testing and immunohistochemistry. For urothelial cancer, this has led to current guidelines recommending that molecular testing be obtained in the metastatic setting, and that it be considered in the setting of locally advanced disease. Between molecular testing and immunohistochemistry testing of tumors, the only current guideline-directed application of these tests is in the identification of FGFR3 or FGFR2 alterations for use of FGFR inhibitors. While additional recurrent molecular alterations linked to the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer have been identified, the ability to successfully "drug" the pathways association with such alterations remains limited. There has been extensive research into whether expression of particular proteins might inform specific treatment approaches such as the use of PD-L1 testing to guide immune checkpoint blockade. With the integration of antibody-drug conjugates into the treatment armamentarium for urothelial cancer, ongoing research is seeking to determine whether expression of the targets of these therapies, such as Nectin 4, Trop-2, or HER2, could help to guide treatment.

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).

Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo following radical surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of Japanese patients enrolled in the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial demonstrated superiority of adjuvant nivolumab over placebo after radical surgery in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab in Japanese patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma have not been clarified. METHODS: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were randomized to adjuvant nivolumab 240 mg or placebo (every 2 weeks via intravenous infusion) up to 120 days after radical surgery in CheckMate 274. RESULTS: Of 49 patients in the Japanese subgroup, 27 and 22 patients were randomized to nivolumab and placebo, respectively. Eleven and 8 patients, respectively, had tumor PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. The median disease-free survival times in the nivolumab and placebo groups were 29.67 months (95% confidence interval 7.79-not reached) and 9.72 months (95% confidence interval 4.73-not reached), respectively (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.35-1.69). The corresponding values in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more were 29.67 months (95% confidence interval 2.63-not reached) and 25.95 months (95% confidence interval 5.59-not reached) (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.31-3.92), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of Grade 3-4 occurred in 25.9 and 13.6% of patients in the nivolumab and placebo groups, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab group were lipase increased, amylase increased and diarrhea. The changes in quality of life scores from baseline over time were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety results in the Japanese subgroup were consistent with the overall population of CheckMate 274.

Adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: The potential impact of informative censoring.

BACKGROUND: The results of 2 studies exploring adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (aCPI) in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial cancer have yielded conflicting results. A trial employing placebo as the control arm demonstrated a significant prolongation in disease-free survival (DFS) whereas a trial employing observation as the control arm (IMvigor010) demonstrated no prolongation in DFS with CPI. Here, the authors aimed to estimate the aCPI benefit and to model the potential impact of informative censoring on trial results. METHODS: Survival data from 1518 patients was reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. A network meta-analysis approach was used to estimate aCPI benefit through the restricted mean disease-free survival time (RMDFST). To estimate the potential impact of informative censoring on IMvigor010, a simulation was performed. The minimum proportion of informative censoring on the observation arm that could account for the lack of observed improvement in DFS was estimated. Random variability from the time of censoring to progression was modeled using the exponential distribution. RESULTS: Patients receiving aCPI had better DFS: ΔRMDFST at 36 months of 2.2 (95% CI, 0.6-3.7, P = .006) months relative to observation/placebo. In IMvigor010, in the observation arm, 20.5% of patients were censored due to consent withdrawal, protocol violation and/or noncompliance, or lost to follow-up versus 8.2% in the treatment arm. On simulation, it was found that the lack of observed improvement in DFS could have resulted from as few as 14% of the censored patients on observation arm not being censored at random (simulated DFS with 14% informative censoring hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99; P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Phase 3 trials comparing adjuvant therapies to observation are at risk for informative censoring that could potentially impact interpretation of study results.

Phase II Clinical and Translational Study of Everolimus ± Paclitaxel as First-Line Therapy in Cisplatin-Ineligible Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options have been historically limited for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Given the need for alternatives to platinum-based chemotherapy, including non-chemotherapy regimens for patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status, in 2010 (prior to the immune checkpoint blockade era in metastatic UC), we initiated a phase II trial to test the activity of everolimus or everolimus plus paclitaxel in the cisplatin-ineligible setting. METHODS: This was an open-label phase II trial conducted within the US-based Hoosier Cancer Research Network (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01215136). Patients who were cisplatin-ineligible with previously untreated advanced UC were enrolled. Patients with both impaired renal function and poor performance status were enrolled into cohort 1; patients with either were enrolled into cohort 2. Patients received everolimus 10 mg daily alone (cohort 1) or with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cohort 2). The primary outcome was clinical benefit at 4 months. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints included genomic correlates of outcomes. The trial was not designed for comparison between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2018 (cohort 1, N = 7; cohort 2, N = 29); the trial was terminated due to slow accrual. Clinical benefit at 4 months was attained by 0 (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0-41.0%) patients in cohort 1 and 11 patients (37.9%, 95% CI 20.7-57.7%) in cohort 2. Median PFS was 2.33 (95% CI 1.81-Inf) months in cohort 1 and 5.85 (95% CI 2.99-8.61) months in cohort 2. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events for 2 patients (29%) in cohort 1 and 11 patients (38%) in cohort 2. Molecular alterations in microtubule associated genes may be associated with treatment benefit but this requires further testing. CONCLUSION: Everolimus plus paclitaxel demonstrates clinical activity in cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic UC, although the specific contribution of everolimus cannot be delineated. Patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status may be difficult to enroll to prospective trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01215136).

Incidence of hepatotoxicity associated with addition of immune checkpoint blockade to systemic solid tumor therapy: a meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

Hepatotoxicity is a major immune-related adverse event that may become life-threatening. The impact of adding immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) to systemic therapy on the incidence of hepatotoxicity remains unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of hepatotoxicity among patients with cancer who received therapy with and without addition of ICB. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched to select phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of adding ICB to systemic therapy, placebo, or supportive care. The odds ratio (OR) of any grade and grade 3-5 hepatitis, elevations in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was pooled for meta-analysis. 43 RCTs with 28,905 participants were analyzed. Addition of ICB increased the incidence of hepatitis (any grade: OR, 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-2.97, grade 3-5: OR, 2.66, 95% CI 1.72-4.11), elevated AST (any grade: OR, 2.16, 95% CI 1.73-2.70, grade 3-5: OR, 2.72, 95% CI 1.86-3.99), and elevated ALT (any grade: OR, 2.01, 95% CI 1.59-2.54, grade 3-5: OR, 2.40, 95% CI 1.62-3.55). Subgroup analysis based on the ICB mechanism revealed no significant heterogeneity among each mechanism for hepatitis (any Grade: I2 = 11.1%, p for heterogeneity = 0.32, grade 3-5: I2 = 0%, p = 0.48). Adding ICB to systemic therapy increases the incidence of hepatotoxicity regardless of the mechanism of ICB. Hepatotoxicity is common and vigilant monitoring of liver function is required during ICB therapy for patients with cancer.

The impact of the globalization of cancer clinical trials on the enrollment of Black patients.

BACKGROUND: The enrollment of Black patients in cancer clinical trials continues to trend far below the true prevalence of disease in Black patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of trial results. A potentially overlooked contributor to the underenrollment of Black patients may be the increasing enrollment of cancer trials in countries outside the United States. However, the impact of the globalization of cancer clinical trials on recruitment of racial minority patients has been understudied. METHODS: In this study, race and accrual location data for all cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. A disparity score was calculated for each approval, a metric comparing Black enrollment in clinical trials with the estimated burden of disease in Black patients. RESULTS: Of 49 global clinical trials supporting 35 FDA drug approvals with race data available, Black patients accounted for 2.5% of enrollment (range, 0%-10%), with a median disparity score of 0.19 (range, 0.01-0.98). In 21 clinical trials supporting 18 FDA drug approvals with both race and accrual location data available, 64% patients were enrolled outside the United States (range, 0%-100%). Black patients accounted for 3.2% of enrollment (range, 0.2%-10%), and the median disparity score was 0.23 (range, 0.01-0.98). There was a significant inverse correlation between the proportion of trial patients enrolled outside the United States and the disparity score (Pearson correlation, -0.61; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: The globalization of cancer clinical trials is associated with a widening racial enrollment disparity gap in the United States. The impact of global trials on domestic clinical trial generalizability warrants further consideration from a regulatory and policy standpoint. LAY SUMMARY: Black patients continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials; this disparity has worsened in recent years perhaps because of the globalization of cancer clinical trials. In an analysis of demographic information from 21 cancer clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration approvals between 2015 and 2018, clinical trials conducted primarily outside the United States were 2-fold less likely to enroll Black participants than US clinical trials. Thus, the globalization of cancer clinical trials may have the unintended consequence of further exacerbating existing racial disparities in cancer clinical trial representation and ultimately the generalizability of trial results.

Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo. INTERPRETATION: Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.