Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

We report a comprehensive analysis of 412 muscle-invasive bladder cancers characterized by multiple TCGA analytical platforms. Fifty-eight genes were significantly mutated, and the overall mutational load was associated with APOBEC-signature mutagenesis. Clustering by mutation signature identified a high-mutation subset with 75% 5-year survival. mRNA expression clustering refined prior clustering analyses and identified a poor-survival "neuronal" subtype in which the majority of tumors lacked small cell or neuroendocrine histology. Clustering by mRNA, long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), and miRNA expression converged to identify subsets with differential epithelial-mesenchymal transition status, carcinoma in situ scores, histologic features, and survival. Our analyses identified 5 expression subtypes that may stratify response to different treatments.

ctDNA guiding adjuvant immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma.

Minimally invasive approaches to detect residual disease after surgery are needed to identify patients with cancer who are at risk for metastatic relapse. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) holds promise as a biomarker for molecular residual disease and relapse1. We evaluated outcomes in 581 patients who had undergone surgery and were evaluable for ctDNA from a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in operable urothelial cancer. This trial did not reach its efficacy end point in the intention-to-treat population. Here we show that ctDNA testing at the start of therapy (cycle 1 day 1) identified 214 (37%) patients who were positive for ctDNA and who had poor prognosis (observation arm hazard ratio = 6.3 (95% confidence interval: 4.45-8.92); P < 0.0001). Notably, patients who were positive for ctDNA had improved disease-free survival and overall survival in the atezolizumab arm versus the observation arm (disease-free survival hazard ratio = 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.79); P = 0.0024, overall survival hazard ratio = 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.86)). No difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between treatment arms was noted for patients who were negative for ctDNA. The rate of ctDNA clearance at week 6 was higher in the atezolizumab arm (18%) than in the observation arm (4%) (P = 0.0204). Transcriptomic analysis of tumours from patients who were positive for ctDNA revealed higher expression levels of cell-cycle and keratin genes. For patients who were positive for ctDNA and who were treated with atezolizumab, non-relapse was associated with immune response signatures and basal-squamous gene features, whereas relapse was associated with angiogenesis and fibroblast TGFß signatures. These data suggest that adjuvant atezolizumab may be associated with improved outcomes compared with observation in patients who are positive for ctDNA and who are at a high risk of relapse. These findings, if validated in other settings, would shift approaches to postoperative cancer care.

Safety and efficacy of avelumab plus carboplatin in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in an open-label Phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in unselected mCRPC. The evidence of a survival benefit with sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, provides a rationale to study further increasing immunogenicity in mCRPC through combinations. METHODS: Safety and efficacy avelumab plus carboplatin was investigated in a single-arm Phase Ib study in mCRPC, progressing to at least one taxane and one androgen-receptor inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included PSA/radiographic responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline/somatic mutation analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 26 patients were included. Patients were heavily pretreated: 76.9% received ≥3 and 42.3% ≥4 prior lines. A DNA damage repair (DDR) alteration was found in three patients (11.5%). The safety profile was acceptable with 73% Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. PSA response rate ≥50% was seen in 7.7% of patients. The objective response rate was 17.6%, including one complete response (5.9%). Two of these responders had a known DDR alteration (one BRCA2, one ATM). The median response duration was 6 months. Median radiographic PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI 4.28-9.01), and median OS 10.6 months (95% CI 6.68-NR). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus carboplatin has an acceptable safety profile and was associated with a prolonged OS given the heavily pretreated population.

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.).

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.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. METHOD: In the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2-4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2-29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9-24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2-24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

SPOP and CHD1 alterations in prostate cancer: Relationship with PTEN loss, tumor grade, perineural infiltration, and PSA recurrence.

BACKGROUND: In the non-ETS fusion of prostate cancer (PCa) pathway, SPOP mutations emerge as a distinct oncogenic driver subclass. Both SPOP downregulation and mutation can lead to SPOP target stabilization promoting dysregulation of key regulatory pathways. CHD1 gene is commonly deleted in PCa. CHD1 loss significantly co-occurs with SPOP mutations, resulting in a PCa subclass with increased AR transcriptional activity and with a specific epigenetic pattern. METHODS: In this study, SPOP alterations at mutational and protein levels and CHD1 copy number alterations have been analyzed and correlated with ERG and PTEN protein expression and with the clinical pathological features of the patients. RESULTS: SPOP protein loss has been detected in 42.9% of the cases, and it has been strongly associated with PTEN protein loss (p < .001). CHD1 gene loss has been detected in 24.5% and SPOP mutations in 5.9% of the cases. Loss of CHD1 has been strongly associated with SPOP mutations (p = .003) and has shown a trend to be associated with ERG wt cancers (p = .08). The loss of SPOP protein (p = .01) and the combination of PTEN and SPOP protein loss (p = .002) were both statistically more common in grade group 5 cancers, with a prevalence of 60% and 37.5%, respectively. Furthermore, SPOP loss/PTEN loss and SPOP wt/PTEN loss phenotypes were strongly associated with extraprostatic perineural infiltration (p = .007). Strong CHD1 loss was associated with a shorter time to PSA recurrence in the univariate (p = .04), and showed a trend to be associated with the PSA recurrence risk in the multivariate analysis (p = .058). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that the loss of SPOP protein expression, either alone or in combination with loss of PTEN and, on the other hand, a marked loss of the CHD1 gene are very promising prognostic biomarkers in PCa.

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. CONCLUSION: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.

Sequencing of PD-1/L1 Inhibitors and Carboplatin Based Chemotherapy for Cisplatin Ineligible Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Current first line treatment options in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma unfit to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy include PD-1/L1 inhibitors and carboplatin containing chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of these therapies remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis. Consecutive cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line carboplatin containing chemotherapy followed sequentially by second line PD-1/L1 inhibitor, or the reverse order, were included. Patient demographics, objective response, time to treatment failure for first line and second line therapy, interval between end of first line and initiation of second line treatment (Interval1L-2L) and overall survival were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the association of sequencing on overall survival. RESULTS: In this multicenter retrospective study we identified 146 cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy followed by second line carboplatin containing chemotherapy (group 1, 43) or the reverse sequence (group 2, 103). In the overall cohort median age was 72, 76% were men and 18% had liver metastasis. In both groups objective response rates were higher with carboplatin containing chemotherapy (45.6% first line, 44.2% second line) compared to PD-1/L1 inhibitors (9.3% first line, 21.3% second line). On multivariate analysis treatment sequence was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.05, p=0.85). Site of metastasis was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this biomarker unselected cohort of cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, PD-1/L1 inhibitor followed by carboplatin containing chemotherapy and the reverse sequence had comparable overall survival.

Management of Clinically Regional Node-Positive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinically regional node-positive (cN+) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder requires a multi-modal management approach amidst growing recognition that it represents a spectrum of disease. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence for the natural history, evaluation, and management of clinically regional node-positive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, highlighting recent changes in lymph node staging. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite advances in techniques, cross-sectional imaging remains relatively insensitive for the detection of lymph node metastases. Recent changes to nodal staging that distinguish between cN1, cN2-3, and non-regional lymph node metastases reflect an increasing understanding that node-positive disease is heterogeneous and its management must be individualized according to nodal staging. Systemic therapy remains the initial management strategy, either alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, with choice and sequencing of agents extrapolated from studies of metastatic disease. Consolidative radical cystectomy is an option for patients with disease response to upfront systemic therapy, and several series demonstrate a subset of patients with favorable oncologic outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy and radical cystectomy as local therapy remains an important evidence gap. Future studies that identify predictive biomarkers will help inform optimal choice of systemic therapy. The management of clinically regional node-positive disease requires a multimodal approach comprising both systemic and local therapy, tailored to the patient and to disease response. While choice of systemic therapy will be informed by ongoing studies in patients with metastatic disease, including the elucidation of predictive biomarkers, the comparative effectiveness of local therapies remains an important evidence gap.

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A model combining clinical and genomic factors to predict response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), predictive biomarkers that correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. Here, we interrogated genomic and clinical features associated with response to ICIs in mUC. METHODS: Sixty two mUC patients treated with ICI who had targeted tumour sequencing were studied. We examined associations between candidate biomarkers and clinical benefit (CB, any objective reduction in tumour size) versus no clinical benefit (NCB, no change or objective increase in tumour size). Both univariable and multivariable analyses for associations were conducted. A comparator cohort of 39 mUC patients treated with taxanes was analysed by using the same methodology. RESULTS: Nine clinical and seven genomic factors correlated with clinical outcomes in univariable analysis in the ICI cohort. Among the 16 factors, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 (OR = 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01-1.15), visceral metastasis (OR = 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.43) and single-nucleotide variant (SNV) count < 10 (OR = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.006-0.27) were identified as independent predictors of NCB to ICI in multivariable analysis (c-statistic = 0.90). None of the 16 variables were associated with clinical benefit in the taxane cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This three-factor model includes genomic (SNV count >9) and clinical (NLR <5, lack of visceral metastasis) variables predictive for benefit to ICI but not taxane therapy for mUC. External validation of these hypothesis-generating results is warranted to enable use in routine clinical care.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that progresses after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. METHODS: In this open-label, international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 542 patients with advanced urothelial cancer that recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive pembrolizumab (a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG4κ isotype antibody against programmed death 1 [PD-1]) at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy with paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, which were assessed among all patients and among patients who had a tumor PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) combined positive score (the percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumor and infiltrating immune cells relative to the total number of tumor cells) of 10% or more. RESULTS: The median overall survival in the total population was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0 to 11.8) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 8.3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.91; P=0.002). The median overall survival among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 12.3) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.4) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.88; P=0.005). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of progression-free survival in the total population (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.19; P=0.42) or among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.28; P=0.24). Fewer treatment-related adverse events of any grade were reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (60.9% vs. 90.2%); there were also fewer events of grade 3, 4, or 5 severity reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (15.0% vs. 49.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer overall survival (by approximately 3 months) and with a lower rate of treatment-related adverse events than chemotherapy as second-line therapy for platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-045 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02256436 .).

Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer.

There have been no major advances for the treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) in the last 30 years. Chemotherapy is still the standard of care. Patient outcomes, especially for those in whom chemotherapy is not effective or is poorly tolerated, remain poor. One hallmark of UBC is the presence of high rates of somatic mutations. These alterations may enhance the ability of the host immune system to recognize tumour cells as foreign owing to an increased number of antigens. However, these cancers may also elude immune surveillance and eradication through the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1; also called CD274 or B7-H1) in the tumour microenvironment. Therefore, we examined the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A, a systemic cancer immunotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic UBC. MPDL3280A is a high-affinity engineered human anti-PD-L1 monoclonal immunoglobulin-G1 antibody that inhibits the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1 (PDCD1) and B7.1 (CD80). Because PD-L1 is expressed on activated T cells, MPDL3280A was engineered with a modification in the Fc domain that eliminates antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity at clinically relevant doses to prevent the depletion of T cells expressing PD-L1. Here we show that MPDL3280A has noteworthy activity in metastatic UBC. Responses were often rapid, with many occurring at the time of the first response assessment (6 weeks) and nearly all were ongoing at the data cutoff. This phase I expansion study, with an adaptive design that allowed for biomarker-positive enriched cohorts, demonstrated that tumours expressing PD-L1-positive tumour-infiltrating immune cells had particularly high response rates. Moreover, owing to the favourable toxicity profile, including a lack of renal toxicity, patients with UBC, who are often older and have a higher incidence of renal impairment, may be better able to tolerate MPDL3280A versus chemotherapy. These results suggest that MPDL3280A may have an important role in treating UBC-the drug received breakthrough designation status by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2014.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer in Japanese patients: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 trial.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, randomized, active-controlled KEYNOTE-045 study (NCT02256436) showed that second-line pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) that progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, compared with standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine). Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with bladder cancer in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis was performed in the subgroup of Japanese patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE-045 study. Coprimary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: Fifty-two Japanese patients (pembrolizumab, n = 30; chemotherapy, n = 22) were followed up for a median of 26.1 months. Patients who received pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy had a 19% lower risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.44-1.50); after adjusting for baseline covariates, the HR for OS was 0.61 (95% CI 0.32-1.15). The 24-month OS rate was higher with pembrolizumab (26.9% vs 14.3%). PFS was 2.0 and 4.9 months for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.71, 95% CI 0.95-3.08). ORR was similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (20.0% vs 18.2%); durability of response was higher with pembrolizumab: 67% and 33% of patients, respectively, maintained a response for > 12 months. Treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3-5 events, occurred less frequently with pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC that progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy in the overall population and in the Japanese subgroup; safety profile was consistent with that previously observed for pembrolizumab.

SPOP and FOXA1 mutations are associated with PSA recurrence in ERG wt tumors, and SPOP downregulation with ERG-rearranged prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: ERG fusion-related prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most prevalent oncogenic driver subclass. SPOP, FOXA1, and IDH1 mutations are other three main oncogenic driver subclasses in non-ETS-fusion PrCa. ERG protein levels seem to be increased in SPOP-mutated cases, and different studies reported that SPOP mutations and ERG fusions are mutually exclusive. The aim of this study has been to analyze the alterations in non-ETS-oncogenic drivers in PrCa. METHODS: SPOP, FOXA1, and IDH mutations were investigated by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Sanger direct sequencing. ERG, SPOP, and TMPRSS2-ERG messenger RNA expression was assessed by quantitative real-time PCR from complementary DNA, and the presence of the fusion was also analyzed by nonquantitative PCR. The clinical pathological features were retrieved from the charts of the 111 patients included in the study (MARBiobanc, Barcelona, Spain). RESULTS: Loss of SPOP expression (25.2%) was associated with ERG overexpression (P = 0.0036). SPOP mutations were found in 5.4% cases, all with wild-type (wt) ERG (P = 0.007). FOXA1 mutations were found in 8.2% cases, most of them ERG wt (P = 0.06). No IDH1 mutations were found. SPOP or FOXA1 mutations were found in 1.7% of ERG-rearranged, and 34.2% of non-ERG-rearranged cases (P < 0.0001). SPOP or FOXA1 alterations (mutations or expression loss) were significantly more common in GG5, while isolated ERG overexpression was more common in GG1 tumors (P = 0.042). SPOP-or FOXA1-mutated cases were associated with a shorter time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence in the univariate (P = 0.0009), and with the PSA recurrence risk in the multivariate (P = 0.023) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, SPOP and FOXA1 mutations may have prognostic value in ERG wt tumors. Interestingly, in absence of SPOP mutations, downregulation of this gene is a feature of many ERG-rearranged prostate tumors.