Erdafitinib in BCG-treated high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with disease recurrence after bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment and who are ineligible for/refuse radical cystectomy. FGFR alterations are commonly detected in NMIBC. We evaluated the activity of oral erdafitinib, a selective pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus intravesical chemotherapy in patients with high-risk NMIBC and select FGFR3/2 alterations following recurrence after BCG treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with recurrent, BCG-treated, papillary-only high-risk NMIBC (high-grade Ta/T1) and select FGFR alterations refusing or ineligible for radical cystectomy were randomized to 6 mg daily oral erdafitinib or investigator's choice of intravesical chemotherapy (mitomycin C or gemcitabine). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The key secondary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Study enrollment was discontinued due to slow accrual. Seventy-three patients were randomized 2 : 1 to erdafitinib (n = 49) and chemotherapy (n = 24). Median follow-up for RFS was 13.4 months for both groups. Median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.9 months-not estimable] and was 11.6 months (95% CI 6.4-20.1 months) for chemotherapy, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI 0.1-0.6; nominal P value = 0.0008). In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib prolonged RFS compared with intravesical chemotherapy in patients with papillary-only, high-risk NMIBC harboring FGFR alterations who had disease recurrence after BCG therapy and refused or were ineligible for radical cystectomy.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The evolving oncology treatment paradigm has created an unmet need for administration options that improve patient experiences and health care efficiencies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) was a phase III, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial in which patients with advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to subcutaneous nivolumab (1200 mg every 4 weeks; coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 20 000 units) or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab by coprimary endpoints determined from a population pharmacokinetics analysis [time-averaged serum concentration over the first 28 days (Cavgd28), and minimum steady-state serum concentration (Cminss); noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios (GMR) ≥0.8]. Objective response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint powered for noninferiority [noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 95% CI of relative risk of ORR (subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab) ≥0.60]. RESULTS: Overall, 495 patients were randomized. Relative exposure in the subcutaneous versus intravenous arm reported by the GMR of Cavgd28 and Cminss was 2.098 (90% CI 2.001-2.200) and 1.774 (90% CI 1.633-1.927), respectively. After 8 months of minimum follow-up, ORR was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab (95% CI 19.0%-30.0%) versus 18.2% with intravenous nivolumab [95% CI 13.6%-23.6%; relative risk: 1.33 (95% CI 0.94-1.87)]. Coprimary endpoints and ORR met noninferiority thresholds. Additional efficacy and safety measures were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior to intravenous nivolumab based on pharmacokinetics and ORR. No new safety signals were observed.