Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in patients with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (FGFRalt) who progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy. FGFR-altered tumours are enriched in luminal 1 subtype and may have limited clinical benefit from anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] treatment. This cohort in the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study assessed erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-(L)1-naive patients with mUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with unresectable advanced/mUC, with select FGFRalt, disease progression on one prior treatment, and who were anti-PD-(L)1-naive were randomized 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib 8 mg once daily with pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg or pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population (median follow-up 33 months) comprised 175 and 176 patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between erdafitinib and pembrolizumab [median 10.9 versus 11.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.51; P = 0.18]. Median PFS for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab was 4.4 and 2.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.70-1.10). ORR was 40.0% and 21.6% (relative risk 1.85; 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and median duration of response was 4.3 and 14.4 months for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. 64.7% and 50.9% of patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms had ≥1 grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs); 5 (2.9%) and 12 (6.9%) patients, respectively, had AEs that led to death. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib and pembrolizumab had similar median OS in this anti-PD-(L)1-naive, FGFR-altered mUC population. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were better than assumed and aligned with previous reports in non- FGFR-altered populations. Safety results were consistent with the known profiles for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab in this patient population.

Latest progress in molecular biology and treatment in genitourinary tumours.

The management of genitourinary cancer, including bladder, prostate, renal and testicular cancer, has evolved dramatically in recent years due to a better understanding of tumour genetic mutations, alterations in molecular pathways, and to the development of new kinds of drugs such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies. In the field of immunotherapy, new drugs focused on stimulating, enhancing and modulating the immune system to detect and destroy cancer, have been recently discovered. Research in oncology moves quickly and new data of great relevance for clinical practice are communicated every year. For this reason, a group of experts, focused exclusively on the treatment of genitourinary tumours and who get together every year in the BestGU conference to assess the latest progress in this field have summarized the most important advances in a single review, along with a critical assessment of whether these results should alter daily clinical practice.

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2019).

In this article, we review de state of the art on the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed the subclassification of renal tumours into different histologic variants and may help to identify future prognostic and predictive factors. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. No adjuvant therapy has demonstrated a clear benefit in overall survival. Considering the whole population of patients with advanced disease, the combination of axitinib with either pembrolizumab or avelumab increase response rate and progression-free survival, compared to sunitinib, but a longer overall survival has only been demonstrated so far with the pembrolizumab combo. For patients with IMDC intermediate and poor prognosis, nephrectomy should not be considered mandatory. In this subpopulation, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has also demonstrated a superior response rate and overall survival vs. sunitinib. In patients progressing to one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, both nivolumab and cabozantinib in monotherapy have shown benefit in overall survival compared to everolimus. Although no clear sequence can be recommended, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in patients with metastatic RCC.