Management of urothelial cancer in patients with chronic kidney disease receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

Despite recent advances in the management of urothelial cancer (UC), cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimens remain critical. However, their use can be complicated in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is not uncommon in UC patients. Based on the Galsky criteria for cisplatin ineligibility, most patients with CKD will be excluded from receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy altogether. For patients with borderline kidney function, several strategies - such as the use of split-dose cisplatin, dose reductions, or extra hydration - may facilitate the use of cisplatin, but these need to be prospectively validated. This review highlights the critical need for a multidisciplinary team, including onco-nephrologists, to help manage renal complications and optimize delivery of cancer care in complex UC patients with CKD.

In patients with urothelial cancer, the presence of chronic kidney disease can significantly impact treatment options, eligibility for clinical trials, and overall patient outcomes. This review discusses key strategies and newer treatment options that can be used to optimize outcomes in patients who often can't receive standard treatments. Importantly, this article also highlights the critical importance and need for a multidisciplinary team of specialists, including kidney specialists with a focus on cancer patients, to help manage kidney function and deliver high-quality care to patients with urothelial cancer and chronic kidney disease.

A Podcast on Platinum Eligibility and Treatment Sequencing in Platinum-Eligible Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

The treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma continues to evolve. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab has received Food and Drug Administration approval based on recent phase 3 trial data showing superior efficacy compared with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, its distinct toxicity profile may make it less suitable for some patients, and availability in some countries may be limited by cost considerations. Consequently, platinum-based chemotherapy is expected to remain an important first-line treatment option. Choice of platinum regimen (cisplatin- or carboplatin-based) is informed by assessment of clinical characteristics, including performance status, kidney function, and presence of peripheral neuropathy or heart failure. For patients without disease progression after completing platinum-based chemotherapy, avelumab first-line maintenance treatment is recommended by international guidelines. For patients who have disease progression, pembrolizumab is the preferred approach. Additionally, following results from a recent phase 3 trial, nivolumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy has also received Food and Drug Administration approval and is an additional first-line treatment option for cisplatin-eligible patients. Later-line options for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, depending on prior treatment, may include enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib (for patients with FGFR2/3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements), sacituzumab govitecan, and platinum rechallenge. For the small proportion of patients ineligible for any platinum-based chemotherapy (i.e., unsuitable for cisplatin or carboplatin), immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab is a first-line treatment option, although approved agents vary between countries. In summary, this podcast discusses recent developments in the treatment landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma, eligibility for platinum-based chemotherapy, potential first-line treatment options, and treatment sequencing. Supplementary file1 (MP4 246907 KB).

The Survival Outcomes of the Metastatic Nonclear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Immunotherapy Era: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.

Immunotherapy (IO) with or without targeted therapy (TT) is the standard treatment for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The evidence supporting their use in metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) subtypes is based on small prospective trials and retrospective analyses. Here, we report survival outcomes for patients with metastatic nccRCC treated with IO and/or TT at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. Demographics, disease characteristics, and survival outcomes were collected retrospectively. Overall (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates (ORR) were calculated. We identified 69 patients with metastatic nccRCC treated with IO and/or TT as the first-line treatment, and 36 (52.1%) patients as the second-line treatment. Median OS of the first line IO recipients (n = 12) and non-IO recipients (n = 57) was not reached (NR) and 17.2 months (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 7.3-27.0; P = 0.23), respectively. Median PFS of first-line IO recipients and non-IO recipients was NR and 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.7-5.6; P = 0.019), respectively. The ORR of IO recipients versus non-IO recipients was 50% versus 12.3% (P = 0.007). Median OS of the second-line IO recipients (n = 8) and non-IO recipients (n = 28) was NR and 6.3 months (95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P = 0.003), respectively. Median PFS of second-line IO recipients and non-IO recipients was 4.8 months (95% CI: 2.7-6.8) and 2.8 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.7; P = 0.014), respectively. ORR of IO recipients and non-IO recipients was 37.5% and 3.5%, respectively; P = 0.028. While the number of patients included in our retrospective review was small, our analysis suggested that patients with nccRCC have improved survival outcomes with IO treatment. Validation of prospective dataset is required before widespread clinical utilization.

Clinical variables associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor outcomes in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are indicated for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), but predictive and prognostic factors are lacking. We investigated clinical variables associated with ICI outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 135 patients who received ICI for mUC, 2016-2021, at three Canadian centres. Clinical characteristics, body mass index (BMI), metastatic sites, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), response and survival were abstracted from chart review. RESULTS: We identified 135 patients and 62% had received ICI as a second-line or later treatment for mUC. A BMI ≥25 was significantly correlated to a higher overall response rate (ORR) (45.4% vs 16.3%, p value=0.020). Patients with BMI ≥30 experienced longer median overall survival (OS) of 24.8 vs 14.4 for 25≤BMI<30 and 8.5 months for BMI <25 (p value=0.012). The ORR was lower in the presence of bone metastases (16% vs 41%, p value=0.006) and liver metastases (16% vs 39%, p value=0.013). Metastatic lymph nodes were correlated with higher ORR (40% vs 20%, p value=0.032). The median OS for bone metastases was 7.3 versus 18 months (p value <0.001). Patients with liver metastases had a median OS of 8.6 versus 15 months (p value=0.006). No difference for lymph nodes metastases (13.5 vs 12.7 months, p value=0.175) was found. NLR ≥4 had worse OS (8.2 vs 17.7 months, p value=0.0001). In multivariate analysis, BMI ≥30, bone metastases, NLR ≥4, performance status ≥2 and line of ICI ≥2 were independent factors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Our data identified BMI and bone metastases as novel clinical biomarkers that were independently associated with ICI outcomes in mUC. External and prospective validation are warranted.

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.