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.).

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed With Nonmetastatic Plasmacytoid Variant of Bladder Cancer: A 20-Year University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

PURPOSE: The treated natural history of nonmetastatic plasmacytoid variant of bladder cancer (PV-BCa) is poorly understood owing to its rarity. We sought to examine the disease recurrence and metastasis patterns in this select group of patients in order to identify opportunities for intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a natural language processing algorithm-augmented retrospective chart review of 56 consecutive patients who were treated with curative intent for nonmetastatic PV-BCa at our institution between 1998 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression methods were used for survival analyses. RESULTS: The stage at presentation was: ≤ cT2N0 in 22 (39.3%), cT3N0 in 15 (26.8%), cT4N0 in 13 (23.2%), and ≥ cN1 in 6 patients (10.7%). Forty-nine patients (87.5%) received chemotherapy, and 42 (75%) were able to undergo the planned surgery. Notably, only 4 patients (7.2%) had pT0 stage, while 22 (52.4%) had pN+ disease at the time of surgery. At 36-month follow-up, 28.4% of patients (95% CI: 22.1%-34.5%) were alive and 22.2% (95% CI: 16.1%-28.5%) were free of metastatic disease. The benefit of surgical extirpation was stage specific: successful completion of surgery was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (at 36 months 32.4% vs 0%, log-rank P < .001) in patients with localized or locally advanced disease (≤cT2N0/cT3N0); however, in patients with regionally advanced disease (cT4N0/≥cN1), consolidative surgery following chemotherapy was not associated with improved metastasis-free survival (12.5% vs 10% at 36 months, log-rank P = .49). The median time to metastasis from primary treatment end was 6.5 months (IQR: 2.9-14.7). The predominant site of recurrence/metastasis was the peritoneum (76.1%), either in isolation or along with extraperitoneal lesions. Salvage immunotherapy in these patients significantly reduced the risk of death (HR = 0.11, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: PV-BCa is a disease with high lethality. Despite multimodal treatment, a vast majority of patients develop atypical intraperitoneal metastasis soon after therapy and rapidly succumb to it. Clinical trials evaluating utility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy may be warranted in this high-risk population.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2024.

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

Plain language summary of erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a phase 2 study with long-term follow-up.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of two articles describing the results from a study called BLC2001. The study examined the effect of a medication called erdafitinib on participants with a type of cancer known as urothelial carcinoma that had either spread beyond the bladder or urinary tract into surrounding organs and/or nearby muscles (locally advanced) and was not removable by surgery (unresectable) or had spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). In this study, researchers wanted to learn if erdafitinib was safe and effective at stopping or reducing tumor growth in participants with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain genetic alterations (changes in DNA sequence) in two related genes called fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and 3 (FGFR3). Treatment options for people with this disease are very limited; some may not have responded to other therapies, or their tumors continued to grow after they received other treatments. 212 participants took part in the study. 111 participants were treated with oral (by mouth) erdafitinib at different doses to find a recommended dose regimen. 101 additional participants then received the recommended starting dose of erdafitinib at 8 mg daily with possible increase to 9 mg daily, these participants make up the 8 mg regimen group. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE BLC2001 STUDY IN THE 8 MG REGIMEN GROUP?: Researchers found that tumors decreased in size or completely disappeared in 40% of participants. With approximately 1 year of follow-up, an estimated 55% of participants were still alive, and after 2 years, an estimated 31% of participants were still alive. Common side effects of erdafitinib included high phosphate levels in the blood (hyperphosphatemia), an inflamed and sore mouth, diarrhea, and dry mouth. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Participants had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain FGFR gene alterations that had been treated with erdafitinib after previous chemotherapy and/or a type of medicine that uses the immune system to help the body fight cancer (immunotherapy). The BLC2001 study found that some participants treated with 8 mg erdafitinib had the benefit of a longer period without their cancer growing or spreading to other parts of the body. About 80% of participants achieved some level of disease control where their tumor shrank or remained stable.

Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study. METHODS: The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) are common in urothelial carcinoma and may be associated with lower sensitivity to immune interventions. Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1-4, has shown antitumor activity in preclinical models and in a phase 1 study involving patients with FGFR alterations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with prespecified FGFR alterations. All the patients had a history of disease progression during or after at least one course of chemotherapy or within 12 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Prior immunotherapy was allowed. We initially randomly assigned the patients to receive erdafitinib in either an intermittent or a continuous regimen in the dose-selection phase of the study. On the basis of an interim analysis, the starting dose was set at 8 mg per day in a continuous regimen (selected-regimen group), with provision for a pharmacodynamically guided dose escalation to 9 mg. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients in the selected-regimen group received a median of five cycles of erdafitinib. Of these patients, 43% had received at least two previous courses of treatment, 79% had visceral metastases, and 53% had a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml per minute. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib therapy was 40% (3% with a complete response and 37% with a partial response). Among the 22 patients who had undergone previous immunotherapy, the confirmed response rate was 59%. The median duration of progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and the median duration of overall survival was 13.8 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, which were managed mainly by dose adjustments, were reported in 46% of the patients; 13% of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erdafitinib was associated with an objective tumor response in 40% of previously treated patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR alterations. Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in nearly half the patients. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; BLC2001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02365597.).

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

Targeting the FGFR Pathway in Urothelial Carcinoma: the Future Is Now.

OPINION STATEMENT: As we come to better understand cancer genomics, we are increasingly shifting towards precision medicine. FGFR has been elucidated as one of the oncogenic driver pathways in urothelial carcinoma, leading to exciting targeted drug development. Although many agents are being investigated, erdafitinib is the only FGFR inhibitor currently approved by the FDA for treating platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR2/3 alterations, with seemingly higher response rates than second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy. In this review, we summarize the clinical data supporting FGFR inhibition, ways to optimize its use in routine clinical practice including FGFR testing, dosing, and toxicity management. We also highlight ongoing efforts evaluating combination strategies and testing in earlier treatment settings to further expand this targeted therapeutic approach in urothelial carcinoma.

Results of a multicenter, phase 2 study of nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with advanced rare genitourinary malignancies.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, single-arm, multicohort, phase 2 trial, the efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab was evaluated in patients with advanced rare genitourinary cancers, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, platinum-refractory germ cell tumors, penile carcinoma, and prostate cancer of variant histology (NCT03333616). METHODS: Patients with rare genitourinary malignancies and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure were enrolled. Patients received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 doses, and this was followed by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled at 6 institutions between April 2018 and July 2019 in 3 cohorts: BUTCVH (n = 19), adrenal tumors (n = 18), and other tumors (n = 18). The median follow-up was 9.9 months (range, 1 to 21 months). Twenty-eight patients (51%) received 4 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab; 25 patients received nivolumab maintenance for a median of 4 cycles (range, 1-18 cycles). The ORR for the entire study was 16% (80% confidence interval, 10%-25%); the ORR in the BUTCVH cohort, including 2 complete responses, was 37%, and it was 6% in the other 2 cohorts. Twenty-two patients (40%) developed treatment-related grade 3 or higher toxicities; 24% (n = 13) required high-dose steroids (≥40 mg of prednisone or the equivalent). Grade 5 events occurred in 3 patients; 1 death was treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in objective responses in a subset of patients with rare genitourinary malignancies, especially those with BUTCVH. An additional cohort exploring their activity in genitourinary tumors with neuroendocrine differentiation is ongoing. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with rare cancers are often excluded from studies and have limited treatment options. Fifty-five patients with rare tumors of the genitourinary system were enrolled from multiple sites and were treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab, a regimen used for kidney cancer. The regimen showed activity in some patients, particularly those with bladder or upper tract cancers of unusual or variant histology; 37% of those patients responded to therapy. Additional studies are ongoing to better determine who benefits the most from this combination.

Progression of Disease after Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy: Refining Patient Selection for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy before Radical Cystectomy.

PURPOSE: Data from the pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) era suggests patients who progress on bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) to muscle-invasive bladder cancer (P-MIBC) exhibit worse outcomes compared to de novo MIBC (D-MIBC). Herein, we investigate whether P-MIBC is an independent poor risk factor in the setting of contemporary NAC use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of patients who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) for cT2-3 MIBC from 2005 to 2018 was performed. Patients were stratified into high risk (lymphovascular invasion, variant histology, hydronephrosis, cT3b) vs low risk (no risk factors) and P-MIBC (≤pT1 treated with at least induction BCG who progressed to ≥cT2) vs D-MIBC. RESULTS: Among 801 patients who underwent RC 20.3% had P-MIBC and 79.7% had D-MIBC. In low-risk patients treated without NAC, P-MIBC was associated with pathological upstaging (64.9% vs 42.7%, p=0.004) and worse overall (OS, p=0.006) and cancer-specific survival (CSS, p=0.001) compared to D-MIBC. P-MIBC status conferred uniformly poor survival outcomes to patients who did not receive NAC compared to D-MIBC without NAC (median OS 51.5 months [95% CI 40.0-81.0] vs 85.1 months [95% CI 62.8-96.0], p=0.040; median CSS not reached, p=0.014). However, P-MIBC status did not remain a negative prognostic factor in the setting of NAC (median OS 90.5 months [95% CI 34.0-not estimable] vs 87.8 months [95% CI 68.7-not estimable], p=0.606; median CSS not reached, p=0.448). CONCLUSIONS: P-MIBC confers a poor prognosis when managed with RC alone. Treatment with NAC results in equivalent pathological response and survival outcomes compared to D-MIBC. P-MIBC should be included in risk-stratified approaches to NAC selection.

Perioperative pembrolizumab therapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Phase III KEYNOTE-866 and KEYNOTE-905/EV-303.

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is associated with high rates of recurrence and poor prognosis despite aggressive treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy (RC) improves outcomes in cisplatin-eligible patients; however, the improvement in overall survival is modest. Standard of care for cisplatin-ineligible patients remains RC; more effective systemic therapies are needed. Recent Phase Ib/II studies suggest pembrolizumab monotherapy and combination therapy are effective neoadjuvant therapies for MIBC. The randomized Phase III KEYNOTE-866 and KEYNOTE-905/EV-303 studies are being conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of perioperative pembrolizumab or placebo with chemotherapy in cisplatin-eligible patients with MIBC (KEYNOTE-866) and of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus pembrolizumab plus enfortumab vedotin versus RC plus pelvic lymph node dissection alone in cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC (KEYNOTE-905/EV-303). Clinical trial registration: NCT03924856 & NCT03924895 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

PIVOT-10: Phase II study of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer.

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Emerging treatments in advanced urothelial cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Urothelial carcinoma is one of the 10 most common forms of cancer in the world with more than half a million cases diagnosed yearly. The past few years have witnessed a revolution in understanding the biology of urothelial carcinoma and the development of promising therapies. In this review, we summarize the emerging therapeutic approaches in the management of advanced urothelial carcinoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Since 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, and an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Additionally, the FDA has granted several breakthrough designations for other therapeutic strategies including other ADCs. SUMMARY: CPIs, anti-FGFR agents and ADCs are significant advancements that offer new treatment options to patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, there remains a need to understand mechanisms of resistance, identify biomarkers to choose potential responders, and learn the best strategy to sequence these agents in regards to lines of therapy.

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Targeting advanced urothelial carcinoma-developing strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advanced urothelial carcinoma is a heterogeneous disease with high burden of morbidity, mortality, and cost. Significant progress has been made in understanding the biology of the disease and the development of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. In this review, we summarize the current and future therapeutic approaches in the management of urothelial carcinoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Advances in immune checkpoint inhibitors resulted in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of atezolizumab in 2016, and pembrolizumab, avelumab, durvalumab, and nivolumab in 2017 for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. More recently, development of inhibitors targeting the fibroblast growth factor receptor genetic alterations and antibody-drug conjugates targeting specific cell surface antigens (trop2, nectin4, and SLITRK6) resulted in several FDA breakthrough designations for urothelial carcinoma. CONCLUSION: The development of novel therapies targeting the immune and molecular pathways of advanced urothelial carcinoma is promising for the improvement of outcomes in this lethal disease. Ongoing efforts are poised to optimize therapeutic options in the post-chemotherapy arena. In the era of precision medicine, the future of urothelial carcinoma lies in using less cytotoxic chemotherapy, more targeted therapy and immunotherapy, and possibly a combination of these therapeutic approaches.

SIU-ICUD recommendations on bladder cancer: systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer.

The SIU (Société Internationale d'Urologie)-ICUD (International Consultation on Urologic Diseases) working group on systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer has summarized the most recent findings on the aforementioned topic and came to conclusions and recommendations according to the evidence published. In Europe and the United States, treatment for metastatic UC has changed a great deal recently, mainly involving a move from chemotherapy to immune checkpoint blockers. This is particularly true in platinum-refractory disease, where supportive randomized data exist. Five checkpoint blockers have been approved in this setting by the FDA: avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab have been approved in Europe.

Nivolumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: CheckMate 275 2-year global and Japanese patient population analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in the single-arm, phase II CheckMate 275 study in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma. We report updated results of the global population and a subanalysis of Japanese patients from this study. METHODS: Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) confirmed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) by BIRC and overall survival (OS). Safety was also reported. The minimum follow-up was 21 months. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients were treated with nivolumab globally; 23 patients were Japanese. In the global and Japanese populations, respectively, ORR per BIRC was 20.4% and 21.7%; median PFS was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-2.3) and 3.8 months (95% CI 1.9-7.2); and median OS was 8.6 (95% CI 6.1-11.3) and 21.0 months (95% CI 7.2-not reached). The most common any grade treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (18.1%) and diarrhea (12.2%) in the global population; the most common in the Japanese population were diarrhea (26.1%) and pyrexia (13.0%). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61 (22.6%) and seven (30.4%) of the global and Japanese patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab continues to show antitumor activity and survival in the global population of CheckMate 275. Meaningful clinical benefit was also observed in Japanese patients. No new safety signals were identified.

Immunotherapy with Checkpoint Blockade in the Treatment of Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Although immunotherapy has a long history in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, its use was limited to intravesical therapy for nonmuscle invasive disease. The development of immune checkpoint blockers for systemic delivery has expanded the application of immunotherapy to advanced metastatic urothelial cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed® database was searched for publications regarding immune checkpoint blockers for the treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma. Relevant congress abstracts were identified through searches of individual congress websites. RESULTS: A summary of the biology and immunology of urothelial carcinoma provides context to aid in discussing key data pertaining to immune checkpoint blockers that are approved and in development. We address immune mediated adverse events that are unique to immunotherapies and review diagnostic tools that may be useful to identify patients who would most benefit from immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Immunotherapies for urothelial carcinoma have shown clinical efficacy in select patients as well as a manageable safety profile. Studies are ongoing with the aim of expanding the proof of efficacy in metastatic disease and providing additional treatment options for patients with earlier stages of urothelial carcinoma.

Determining the optimal time for radical cystectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the recovery window (RW) between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) affects 90-day postoperative morbidity and incidence of lymph node metastasis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients treated with NAC and RC from 1995 to 2013 for ≤cT4 N0 M0 bladder cancer. The association of the RW with 90-day perioperative morbidity and lymph node metastasis was determined. Generalised linear models were used to determine predictors of each endpoint. Patients were stratified into four RWs by 21-day intervals (18-42; 43-63; 64-84; and ≥85 days) from last day of NAC to RC. RESULTS: We evaluated 306 patients with RW information during the study period. The median (range) RW was 46 (18-199) days. There was no difference in overall morbidity, re-admission, or major complication rates amongst the four RWs. In the multivariable analysis extravesical disease was an independent predictor of overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-3.26; P = 0.011). Age (OR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.09; P = 0.004), and surgical duration ≥7 h (OR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.52-5.42; P = 0.001) were independent predictors of major complications. Only surgical duration ≥7 h was a predictor of re-admission (OR 2.24; 95% CI: 1.26-3.98; P = 0.006). A RW of ≥85 days had the highest incidence of node-positive disease (pN+; 40%). In a separate multivariable model that included clinical predictors for pN+, a RW of ≥85 days was an independent predictor of nodal metastasis (OR 2.92, 95% CI: 1.20-7.09; P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with NAC for bladder cancer can undergo RC between 18 and 84 days (2.5-12 weeks) after NAC with no difference in the risk of perioperative morbidity. Delaying surgery beyond 12 weeks was associated with a significant risk of lymph node metastasis.