Daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) followed by high dose chemotherapy-Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation leads to superior outcomes when compared to DPd-alone for patients with Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While the role of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in the first line therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is well established, efficacy of ASCT for patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the era of novel therapeutic agents remains unknown. In this single center retrospective analysis, we evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients with RRMM treated with daratumumab pomalidomide dexamethasone (DPd) alone versus (vs) DPd followed by ASCT. METHODS: A total of 83 patients with RRMM who were treated with and achieved at least partial response (PR) with DPd were evaluated by electronic medical records. All patients who responded to DPd and were deemed eligible for ASCT proceeded with high dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell infusion (DPd + ASCT group). Remaining patients continued DPd until disease progression or intolerable toxicities (DPd-alone group). Responses were evaluated using the International Myeloma Working Group response criteria and toxicities were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient and disease characteristics, as well as efficacy and safety outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 21/83 (25%) patients with RRMM who achieved at least PR to DPd underwent ASCT (DPd + ASCT group) while the remaining 62/83 (75%) continued DPd without ASCT (DPd-alone group). For the entire patient population, median age was 66 years (42-81), 49 (59%) patients were male, 54 (65%) patients had IgG isotype, 21 (25%) patients had R-ISS stage III disease, 51 (61%) patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 17 (20%) patients had extramedullary disease. Patient age, disease stage, cytogenetic risk profile were well balanced between two groups. A stringent complete response was seen in 10 (16%) and 12 (57%) patients in the DPd-alone and DPd + AST groups, respectively. Median PFS was 17.5 months in the DPd-alone vs 42.2 months (p=0.006) in the DPd + ASCT group. Median OS was 38.1 months in the DPd-alone group vs not reached in the DPD + ASCT group (p=0.009). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicities, more commonly seen in the DPd + ASCT group. No treatment-related mortalities were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Patients with RRMM who responded to DPd and underwent HDT-ASCT demonstrated superior depth and duration of remission compared to those who received DPd-alone. Although DPd followed by ASCT is associated with more cytopenias and gastrointestinal toxicities, this treatment appears to be overall safe for patients with RRMM.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Response and Outcomes to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Urothelial Cancer Based on Prior Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but response rates can be modest. We compared outcomes between patients with and without prior intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), who received ICI for aUC, hypothesizing that prior intravesical BCG would be associated with worse outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 25 institutions in US and Europe. We compared observed response rate (ORR) using logistic regression; progression-free survival (PFS) and OS using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. Analyses were stratified by treatment line (first line/salvage) and included multivariable models adjusting for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 1026 patients with aUC were identified; 614, 617, and 638 were included in ORR, OS, PFS analyses, respectively. Overall, 150 pts had history of prior intravesical BCG treatment. ORR to ICI was similar between those with and without prior intravesical BCG exposure in both first line and salvage settings (adjusted odds radios 0.55 [P= .08] and 1.65 [P= .12]). OS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.05 [P= .79] and 1.13 [P= .49]) and PFS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.12 [P= .55] and 0.87 [P= .39]) were similar between those with and without intravesical BCG exposure in first line and salvage settings. CONCLUSION: Prior intravesical BCG was not associated with differences in response and survival in patients with aUC treated with ICI. Limitations include retrospective nature, lack of randomization, presence of selection and confounding biases. This study provides important preliminary data that prior intravesical BCG exposure may not impact ICI efficacy in aUC.

Association of prior local therapy and outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: We included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately. CONCLUSION: Prior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

Efficacy of enfortumab vedotin in advanced urothelial cancer: Analysis from the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study.

BACKGROUND: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate approved for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) refractory to prior therapy. In the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study, the authors looked at the experience with EV in patient subsets of interest for which activity had not been well defined in clinical trials. METHODS: UNITE was a retrospective study of patients with aUC treated with recently approved agents. This initial analysis focused on patients treated with EV. Patient data were abstracted from chart reviews by investigators at each site. The observed response rate (ORR) was investigator-assessed for patients with at least 1 post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression. ORRs were compared across subsets of interest for patients treated with EV monotherapy. RESULTS: The initial UNITE analysis included 304 patients from 16 institutions; 260 of these patients were treated with EV monotherapy and included in the analyses. In the monotherapy cohort, the ORR was 52%, and it was >40% in all reported subsets of interest, including patients with comorbidities previously excluded from clinical trials (baseline renal impairment, diabetes, and neuropathy) and patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations. Progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.8 and 14.4 months, respectively. Patients with a pure urothelial histology had a higher ORR than patients with a variant histology component (58% vs 42%; P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, responses to EV monotherapy were consistent with data previously reported in clinical trials and were also observed in various patient subsets, including patients with variant histology, patients with FGFR3 alterations, and patients previously excluded from clinical trials with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min and significant comorbidities. LAY SUMMARY: Enfortumab vedotin, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, is an important new drug for the treatment of patients with advanced bladder cancer. This study looks at the effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin as it has been used at multiple centers since approval, and focuses on important patient populations previously excluded from clinical trials. These populations include patients with decreased kidney function, diabetes, and important mutations. Enfortumab vedotin is effective for treating these patients. Previously reported clinical trial data have been replicated in this real-world setting, and support the use of this drug in broader patient populations.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced upper and lower tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison of outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line). RESULTS: Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed-histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed-histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy.

A New Prognostic Model in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in the first-line (1L) setting for cisplatin-unfit patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high tumors or for platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-unfit patients, response rates remain modest and outcomes vary with no clinically useful biomarkers (except for PD-L1). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving 1L ICIs for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) in a multicenter cohort study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients treated with 1L ICIs for aUC across 24 institutions and five countries (in the USA and Europe) outside clinical trials were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a stepwise, hypothesis-driven approach using clinician-selected covariates to develop a new risk score for patients receiving ICIs in the 1L setting. Demographics, clinicopathologic data, treatment patterns, and OS were collected uniformly. Univariate Cox regression was performed on 18 covariates hypothesized to be associated with OS based on published data. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis (MVA) if they correlated with OS (p < 0.2) and were included in the final model if p < 0.05 on MVA. Retained covariates were assigned points based on the beta coefficient to create a risk score. Stratified median OS and C-statistic were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 984 patients, 357 with a mean age of 71 yr were included in the analysis, 27% were female, 68% had pure UC, and 13% had upper tract UC. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases were significant prognostic factors on MVA and were included in the risk score. C index for new 1L risk score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.71). Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of external validation. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a new 1L ICI risk score for OS based on data from patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the USA and Europe outside of clinical trials. The score components highlight readily available factors related to tumor biology and treatment response. External validation is being pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: With multiple new treatments under development and approved for advanced urothelial carcinoma, it can be difficult to identify the best treatment sequence for each patient. The risk score may help inform treatment discussions and estimate outcomes in patients treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, while it can also impact clinical trial design and endpoints. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A new risk score was developed for advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. The score assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases each one point, with a higher score being associated with worse overall survival.

Patient Characteristics and Survival Outcomes of Non-Metastatic, Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) includes histologically and molecularly distinct subtypes such as papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, and sarcomatoid RCC, with an incidence ranging from 20% to 25%. Oncologic outcomes and the role of adjuvant systemic therapy [vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) or immunotherapy] for non-ccRCC are not well-described. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence and survival outcomes of non-ccRCC subtypes in comparison to ccRCC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients with non-metastatic RCC (T1-T4, N0-N1) between 2004 and 2015. The non-ccRCC cohort was further stratified by histologic subtype: papillary, chromophobe, sarcomatoid, and collecting duct RCC. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The 5-year OS for chromophobe, papillary, clear cell, collecting duct, and sarcomatoid RCC was 91%, 82%, 81%, 44%, and 40%, respectively. After adjusting for clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics, there was no significant difference in OS between papillary RCC and ccRCC (p = 0.17). Patients with collecting duct and sarcomatoid subtypes were at over two times increased risk of death compared to patients with clear cell (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Conversely, patients with chromophobe RCC were at 36% decreased risk of death compared to ccRCC (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This hospital-based analysis confirms that collecting duct and sarcomatoid histologic subtypes are uncommon and associated with poor survival after surgery when compared to the other RCC subtypes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in these subtypes to improve oncologic outcomes.

Evaluation of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With End-stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: Case Series and Review of the Literature.

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have become standard of care for multiple types of malignancies and while end-stage renal disease is not a contraindication, these patients are frequently excluded from clinical trials. As a result, there is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of CPI use in this patient population. In this case series, we report outcomes and adverse events in 8 patients on hemodialysis treated with CPIs. Treatment was overall well-tolerated with adverse events in 3 of 8 (37.5%) patients, with 1 (12.5%) having a grade 4 adverse event, which is comparable to the rate reported in literature for the overall population receiving CPI. No treatment related deaths were seen. Because of small sample size, efficacy data is limited. Further studies are needed in this patient population to elucidate the true incidence of adverse events and antitumor activity.

Histological Subtypes and Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade in Advanced Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: Urinary tract cancer can be pure urothelial carcinoma, pure nonurothelial carcinoma or variant urothelial carcinoma (defined here as mixed urothelial carcinoma). Little is known regarding outcomes for patients with variant urothelial carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesized that variant urothelial carcinoma does not compromise immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 18 institutions. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data were collected for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were divided into pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma subgroups, with variant urothelial carcinoma further divided by type of variant (ie squamous, neuroendocrine etc). We compared overall response rate using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and progression-free survival and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Overall 519 patients were identified, with 395, 406 and 403 included in overall response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival analyses, respectively. Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors between patients with pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma was comparable (28% vs 29%, p=0.90) without significant differences for individual subtypes vs pure urothelial carcinoma. Median overall survival for patients with pure urothelial carcinoma was 11.0 months vs 10.1 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.60), but only 4.6 months for patients with neuroendocrine features (9 patients, HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.40 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.003). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for pure vs 5.2 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.43) and 3.7 months for neuroendocrine features (HR 1.87, 95% CI 0.92-3.79 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was comparable across histological types. However, overall survival was worse for patients with tumors containing neuroendocrine features. Variant urothelial carcinoma should not exclude patients from receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Impact of performance status on treatment outcomes: A real-world study of advanced urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent an appealing treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) and a poor performance status (PS). However, the benefit of ICIs for patients with a poor PS remains unknown. It was hypothesized that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥2 vs 0-1) would correlate with shorter overall survival (OS) in patients receiving ICIs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data were collected for patients with aUC who were treated with ICIs at 18 institutions (2013-2019). The overall response rate (ORR) and OS were compared for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 and patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2 at ICI initiation. The association between a new ICI in the last 30 and 90 days of life (DOL) and death location was also tested. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients treated with ICIs, 395 and 384 were included in OS and ORR analyses, respectively, with 26% and 24% having a PS ≥ 2. OS was higher in those with a PS of 0 to 1 than those with a PS ≥ 2 who were treated in the first line (median, 15.2 vs 7.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .01) but not in subsequent lines (median, 9.8 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.78; P = .27). ORRs were similar for patients with a PS of 0 to 1 and patients with a PS ≥ 2 in both lines. Of the 288 patients who died, 10% and 32% started ICIs in the last 30 and 90 DOL, respectively. ICI initiation in the last 30 DOL was associated with increased odds of death in a hospital (odds ratio, 2.89; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable ORRs, ICIs may not overcome the negative prognostic role of a poor PS, particularly in the first-line setting, and the initiation of ICIs in the last 30 DOL was associated with hospital death location.