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.).

Resolution of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with cancer treated with fidaxomicin or vancomycin.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at increased risk for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Little is known about treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two double-blind trials randomly allocated 1,105 patients with CDAD to fidaxomicin or vancomycin treatment (modified intent-to-treat [mITT]), and 183 of these had cancer. Univariate and multivariate post hoc analyses compared effects of treatment and patient characteristics on cure, recurrence, and sustained response after 4 weeks. Time to resolution of diarrhea (TTROD) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Patients with cancer had a lower cure rate and longer TTROD than patients without cancer. Recurrence rates were similar. Cure was more likely with fidaxomicin than vancomycin (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P = .065), recurrence was less likely (OR = 0.37; P = .018), and sustained response more frequent (OR = 2.56; P = .003). Under vancomycin, median TTROD was longer in patients with cancer than in those without (123 v 58 hours; log-rank P < .001). With fidaxomicin, median TTROD was not significantly affected by presence of cancer (74 v 54 hours; log-rank P = .145). In the full mITT population, age, hypoalbuminemia, and cancer were inversely associated with clinical cure by multivariate analysis. Study treatment with vancomycin was a significant predictor of recurrence (P < .001). Within the cancer population, low albumin was negatively and fidaxomicin was positively associated with improved cure. CONCLUSION: For patients with cancer, fidaxomicin treatment was superior to vancomycin, resulting in higher cure and sustained response rates, shorter TTROD, and fewer recurrences.