Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

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.).

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

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

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).

Non-muscle-invasive micropapillary bladder cancer has a distinct lncRNA profile associated with unfavorable prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular subtyping of bladder cancer has revealed luminal tumors generally have a more favourable prognosis. However, some aggressive forms of variant histology, including micropapillary, are often classified luminal. In previous work, we found long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) expression profiles could identify a subgroup of luminal bladder tumors with less aggressive biology and better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we aimed to investigate whether lncRNA expression profiles could identify high-grade T1 micropapillary bladder cancer with differential outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: LncRNAs were quantified from RNA-seq data from a HGT1 bladder cancer cohort that was enriched for primary micropapillary cases (15/84). Unsupervised consensus clustering of variant lncRNAs identified a three-cluster solution, which was further characterised using a panel of micropapillary-associated biomarkers, molecular subtypes, gene signatures, and survival analysis. A single-sample genomic signature was trained using lasso-penalized logistic regression to classify micropapillary-like gene-expression, as characterised by lncRNA clustering. The genomic classifier (GC) was tested on luminal tumors derived from the TCGA cohort (N = 202). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between subgroups by using X2 tests and two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Primary endpoints were overall, progression-free and high-grade recurrence-free survival, calculated as the date of high-grade T1 disease at TURBT till date of death from any cause, progression, or recurrence, respectively. Survival rates were estimated using weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Primary micropapillary HGT1 showed decreased FGFR3, SHH, and p53 pathway activity relative to tumors with conventional urothelial carcinoma. Many bladder cancer-associated lncRNAs were downregulated in micropapillary tumors, including UCA1, LINC00152, and MALAT1. Unsupervised consensus clustering resulted in a lncRNA cluster 1 (LC1) with worse prognosis that was enriched for primary micropapillary histology and the Luminal Unstable (LumU) molecular subtype. Interestingly, LC1 appeared to better identify aggressive HGT1 disease, compared to stratifying outcomes using primary histologic characteristics. A signature trained to identify LC1 cases showed good performance in the testing cohort, identifying seven cases with significantly worse survival (p < 0.001). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the lack of a validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Using the lncRNA transcriptome we identified a subgroup of aggressive HGT1 bladder cancer that was enriched with micropapillary histology. These data suggest that lncRNAs can facilitate the identification of aggressive micropapillary-like tumors, potentially improving patient management.

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

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

Cancers of the bladder and other parts in the urinary system, especially those that are invasive and grow into the muscle layer, may need extra treatment after surgical removal of the tumor, particularly if there is a high risk of the cancer coming back. Chemotherapy regimens that include cisplatin are often used postoperatively, although some patients are unable to tolerate this treatment or refuse it. FGFR3, a protein that is encoded by the FGFR3 gene, is often changed in these cancers. This helps the tumor grow. Infigratinib is an investigational drug that targets FGFR3 and inhibits the abnormal growth of the tumor. In the PROOF 302 study, patients are randomly assigned to treatment with infigratinib or a placebo pill for 1 year after surgery to see if the drug is effective. The aim is to see if patients who take infigratinib have a longer time free from the disease than those who receive a placebo. The study will also look at how long patients remain free from cancer spread and how long they live overall. The study will also investigate how safe the treatment is and how easy it is to live with it. PROOF 302 is an important study as it will define the role of infigratinib in patients with cancers of the bladder and urinary system who also have FGFR3 changes, for whom more treatment choices are needed. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04197986 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JAVELIN BLADDER 100 STUDY?: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Progress in systemic therapy for advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma.

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

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

PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay). RESULTS: No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis from JAVELIN Bladder 100 by Duration of First-line Chemotherapy and Interval Before Maintenance.

BACKGROUND: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (advanced UC) without progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report post hoc analyses of subgroups defined by the duration of first-line chemotherapy and interval before maintenance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC without progression after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and a 4-10-wk interval after chemotherapy (n = 700) were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC or BSC alone. Subgroups were defined by duration (quartile [Q]) and estimated number of cycles of chemotherapy, and interval between chemotherapy and maintenance. The median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint), PFS, and safety were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were as follows: by chemotherapy duration-Q3: 0.63 (0.39-1.00); by number of cycles-four cycles: 0.69 (0.48-1.00), five cycles: 0.98 (0.57-1.71), and six cycles: 0.66 (0.47-0.92); and by interval-4-<6 wk: 0.75 (0.54-1.04), 6-<8 wk: 0.67 (0.43-1.06), and 8-10 wk: 0.69 (0.47-1.02). Results were similar for PFS. Safety was similar across subgroups. All analyses were exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses of OS and PFS in subgroups defined by first-line chemotherapy duration and interval before maintenance were generally consistent with the results in the overall population, with similar safety findings. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Avelumab maintenance treatment helped patients with advanced urothelial cancer without disease progression after at least four cycles of prior chemotherapy, and who started maintenance treatment at least 4 wk after chemotherapy, to live longer.

Adjuvant Nivolumab in High-Risk Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: Expanded Efficacy From CheckMate 274.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.CheckMate 274 is a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) at high risk of recurrence after radical resection. The primary end points of disease-free survival (DFS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) and tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1% populations were met. We report results at an extended median follow-up of 36.1 months in the ITT population. In addition, we report interim overall survival (OS) data for the first time and an exploratory analysis among patients with bladder primary tumors (muscle-invasive bladder cancer [MIBC]). Consistent DFS benefit with nivolumab versus placebo was observed in both the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86]) and PD-L1 ≥1% (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]) patients. The HR for OS with nivolumab versus placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.96) in the ITT population and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86) in the PD-L1 ≥1 population. Continuous benefit in nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival was also observed in both patient populations. The exploratory analysis of patients with MIBC also showed continued efficacy benefits, irrespective of PD-L1 status. No new safety signals were reported. Overall, these results further support adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care for high-risk MIUC after radical resection.

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

BACKGROUND: The CheckMate 274 trial demonstrated improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after radical surgery in both the intent-to-treat population and the subset with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1%. OBJECTIVE: To analyze DFS by combined positive score (CPS), which is based on PD-L1 expression in both tumor and immune cells. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We randomized a total of 709 patients 1:1 to nivolumab 240 mg or placebo every 2 wk intravenously for ≤1 yr of adjuvant treatment. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab 240 mg. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary endpoints were DFS in the intent-to-treat population and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1% using the tumor cell (TC) score. CPS was determined retrospectively from previously stained slides. Tumor samples with both quantifiable CPS and TC were analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 629 patients evaluable for CPS and TC, 557 (89%) had CPS ≥1, 72 (11%) had CPS <1, 249 (40%) had TC ≥1%, and 380 (60%) had TC <1%. Among patients with TC <1%, 81% (n = 309) had CPS ≥1. DFS was improved with nivolumab versus placebo for patients with TC ≥1% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.71), those with CPS ≥1 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78), and patients with both TC <1% and CPS ≥1 (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99). CONCLUSION: More patients had CPS ≥1 than TC ≥1%, and most patients who had TC <1% had CPS ≥1. In addition, patients with CPS ≥1 experienced improved DFS with nivolumab. These results may, in part, explain the mechanisms underlying a benefit with adjuvant nivolumab even in patients who had both TC <1% and CPS ≥1. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied survival time without cancer recurrence (disease-free survival; DFS) for patients treated with nivolumab versus placebo after surgery to remove the bladder or components of the urinary tract for bladder cancer in the CheckMate 274 trial. We assessed the impact of levels of the protein PD-L1 expressed either on tumor cells (tumor cell score; TC) or on both tumor cells and immune cells surrounding the tumor (combined positive score; CPS). DFS was impoved with nivolumab versus placebo for patients with TC ≥1%, CPS ≥1, and for patients with both TC <1% and CPS ≥1. This analysis may help physicians understand which patients would benefit most from treatment with nivolumab.

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

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

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

PURPOSE: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated. METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status). RESULTS: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction). CONCLUSION: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

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

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries. OBJECTIVE: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Recent therapeutic advances in urothelial carcinoma: A paradigm shift in disease management.

Management of first-line advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) has consisted during the past three decades in the administration of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by observation. Despite moderate to high response rates to first-line treatment, most patients will relapse shortly after and the outcomes with subsequent therapies are poor with 5-year overall survival rates of 5% in the pre-immunotherapy era. Nonetheless, recent therapeutic developments including the paradigm shift of first-line maintenance therapy with avelumab after response or stabilization on platinum-based chemotherapy, along with the incorporation of new drug classes in further lines of treatment such as antibody drug-conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors have reshaped the field leading to better outcomes in this patient population. This article reviews the current state of the art with an overview on UC management, recent advances, and the upcoming strategies currently in development in advanced UC with an insight into the biology of this disease.

SEOM-SOGUG clinical guideline for localized muscle invasive and advanced bladder cancer (2021).

Most muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BC) are urothelial carcinomas (UC) of transitional origin, although histological variants of UC have been recognized. Smoking is the most important risk factor in developed countries, and the basis for prevention. UC harbors high number of genomic aberrations that make possible targeted therapies. Based on molecular features, a consensus classification identified six different MIBC subtypes. Hematuria and irritative bladder symptoms, CT scan, cystoscopy and transurethral resection are the basis for diagnosis. Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard approach for muscle-invasive BC, although bladder preservation is an option for selected patients who wish to avoid or cannot tolerate surgery. Perioperative cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for cT2-4aN0M0 tumors, or as adjuvant in patients with pT3/4 and or pN + after radical cystectomy. Follow-up is particularly important after the availability of new salvage therapies. It should be individualized and adapted to the risk of recurrence. Cisplatin-gemcitabine is considered the standard first line for metastatic tumors. Carboplatin should replace cisplatin in cisplatin-ineligible patients. According to the EMA label, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab could be an option in cisplatin-ineligible patients with high PD-L1 expression. For patients whose disease respond or did not progress after first-line platinum chemotherapy, maintenance with avelumab prolongs survival with respect to the best supportive care. Pembrolizumab also increases survival versus vinflunine or taxanes in patients with progression after chemotherapy who have not received avelumab, as well as enfortumab vedotin in those progressing to first-line chemotherapy followed by an antiPDL1/PD1. Erdafitinib may be considered in this setting in patients with FGFR alterations. An early onset of supportive and palliative care is always strongly recommended.