Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Comparison of Biomarker Assays for EGFR: Implications for Precision Medicine in Patients with Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) have a poor prognosis and are in desperate need of better therapies. As therapeutic decisions are increasingly guided by biomarkers, and EGFR abnormalities are common in GBM, thus representing a potential therapeutic target, we systematically evaluated methods of assessing EGFR amplification by multiple assays. Specifically, we evaluated correlation among fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), a standard assay for detecting EGFR amplification, with other methods.Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples were used for all assays. EGFR amplification was detected using FISH (N = 206) and whole-exome sequencing (WES, N = 74). EGFR mRNA expression was measured using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, N = 206) and transcriptome profiling (RNAseq, N = 64). EGFR protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC, N = 34). Significant correlations among various methods were determined using Cohen's kappa (κ = 0.61-0.80 defines substantial agreement) or R 2 statistics. RESULTS: EGFR mRNA expression levels by RNA sequencing (RNAseq) and RT-PCR were highly correlated with EGFR amplification assessed by FISH (κ = 0.702). High concordance was also observed when comparing FISH to WES (κ = 0.739). RNA expression was superior to protein expression in delineating EGFR amplification. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for assessing EGFR mRNA expression (RT-PCR, RNAseq) and copy number (WES), but not protein expression (IHC), can be used as surrogates for EGFR amplification (FISH) in GBM. Collectively, our results provide enhanced understanding of available screening options for patients, which may help guide EGFR-targeted therapeutic approaches.