NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2024.

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

A plain language summary of the TROPHY-U-01 study: sacituzumab govitecan use in people with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment being studied for people with a type of bladder cancer, called urothelial cancer, that has progressed to a locally advanced or metastatic stage. Locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer are usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Metastatic urothelial cancer is also treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are few treatment options for people whose cancer gets worse after receiving these treatments. Sacituzumab govitecan is a suitable treatment option for most people with urothelial cancer because it aims to deliver an anti-cancer drug directly to the cancer in an attempt to limit the potential harmful side effects on healthy cells. This is a summary of a clinical study called TROPHY-U-01, focusing on the first group of participants, referred to as Cohort 1. All participants in Cohort 1 received sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: All participants received previous treatments for their metastatic urothelial cancer, including a platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. The tumor in 31 of 113 participants became significantly smaller or could not be seen on scans after sacituzumab govitecan treatment; an effect that lasted for a median of 7.2 months. Half of the participants were still alive 5.4 months after starting treatment, without their tumor getting bigger or spreading further. Half of them were still alive 10.9 months after starting treatment regardless of tumor size changes. Most participants experienced side effects. These side effects included lower levels of certain types of blood cells, sometimes with a fever, and loose or watery stools (diarrhea). Side effects led 7 of 113 participants to stop taking sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study showed that sacituzumab govitecan had significant anti-cancer activity. Though most participants who received sacituzumab govitecan experienced side effects, these did not usually stop participants from continuing sacituzumab govitecan. Doctors can help control these side effects using treatment guidelines, but these side effects can be serious.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03547973 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (TROPHY-U-1).

Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer.

Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs-specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

Advancing Clinical Trial Design for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent drug development for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), few therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and there remains an unmet clinical need. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) supply issues underscore the importance of developing safe and effective drugs for NMIBC. OBJECTIVE: On November 18-19, 2021, the FDA held a public virtual workshop to discuss NMIBC research needs and potential trial designs for future development of effective therapies. METHODS: Representatives from various disciplines including urologists, oncologists, pathologists, statisticians, basic and translational scientists, and the patient advocacy community participated. The workshop format included invited lectures, panel discussions, and opportunity for audience discussion and comment. RESULTS: In a pre-workshop survey, 92% of urologists surveyed considered the development of alternatives to BCG as a high drug development priority for BCG-naïve high-risk patients. Key topics discussed included definitions of disease states; trial design for BCG-naïve NMIBC, BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ, and BCG-unresponsive papillary carcinoma; strengths and limitations of single-arm trial designs; assessing patient-reported outcomes; and considerations for assessing avoidance of cystectomy as an efficacy measure. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop discussed several important opportunities for trial design refinement in NMIBC. FDA encourages sponsors to meet with the appropriate review division to discuss trial design proposals for NMIBC early in drug development.