Treatment Patterns and Efficacy of Chemotherapy After Pembrolizumab in Advanced Urothelial Cancer-a Real-World Study in the pre-Antibody-Drug Conjugate Era.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been established as a routine treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, there has been no standard of care after progression on ICIs. We investigated real-world treatment patterns and efficacy of chemotherapy (CHT) after pembrolizumab, in the era before introduction of maintenance avelumab and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was conducted at twelve Nordic centers. Patients with mUC were treated according to investigator´s choice of CHT after pembrolizumab. Primary endpoint was overall response (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR); secondary endpoints were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were included whereof 23 patients received CHT after pembrolizumab as second line treatment (subcohort A) and 79 patients in third line (subcohort B). Platinum-gemcitabine combinations were the most common regimens in subcohort A, and vinflunine in subcohort B. The ORR and DCR were 36% and 47%, respectively. Presence of liver metastases was independently associated with lower ORR and DCR. The PFS and OS were 3.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and number of previous cycles of pembrolizumab were found to be independent prognostic factors associated with OS. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, CHT showed clinically meaningful response rates and survival in mUC patients after progression with pembrolizumab. Clinical benefit may primarily be achieved in patients with favorable ECOG PS, in patients treated with > 6 cycles pembrolizumab as well as in patients without presence of liver metastases.

Swedish National Guidelines on Urothelial Carcinoma: 2021 update on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To overview the updated Swedish National Guidelines on Urothelial Carcinoma 2021, with emphasis on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A narrative review of the updated version of the Swedish National Guidelines on Urothelial Carcinoma 2021 and highlighting new treatment recommendations, with comparison to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines and current literature. RESULTS: For NMIBC the new EAU 2021 risk group stratification has been introduced for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer to predict risk of progression and the web-based application has been translated to Swedish (https://nmibc.net.). For patients with non-BCG -responsive disease treatment recommendations have been pinpointed, to guide patient counselling in this clinical situation. A new recommendation in the current version of the guidelines is the introduction of four courses of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy to patients with advanced disease in the nephroureterectomy specimen (pT2 or higher and/or N+). Patients with papillary urothelial neoplasms with low malignant potential (PUNLMP) can be discharged from follow-up already after 3 years based on a very low subsequent risk of further recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: The current version of the Swedish national guidelines introduces a new risk-stratification model and follow-up recommendation for NMIBC and adjuvant chemotherapy after radical surgery for UTUC.

Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM).

BACKGROUND: The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m2 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days) or the control arm (carboplatin AUC 4.5 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT02665039.