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).

TrueNTH Sexual Recovery Intervention for couples coping with prostate cancer: Randomized controlled trial results.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes. RESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6-month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples. CONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web-based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment. One hundred forty-two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82). The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group. Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Patient-centered prioritization of bladder cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered research requires the meaningful involvement of patients and caregivers throughout the research process. The objective of this study was to create a process for sustainable engagement for research prioritization within oncology. METHODS: From December 2014 to 2016, a network of engaged patients for research prioritization was created in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN): the BCAN Patient Survey Network (PSN). The PSN leveraged an online bladder cancer community with additional recruitment through print advertisements and social media campaigns. Prioritized research questions were developed through a modified Delphi process and were iterated through multidisciplinary working groups and a repeat survey. RESULTS: In year 1 of the PSN, 354 patients and caregivers responded to the research prioritization survey; the number of responses increased to 1034 in year 2. The majority of respondents had non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and the mean time since diagnosis was 5 years. Stakeholder-identified questions for noninvasive, invasive, and metastatic disease were prioritized by the PSN. Free-text questions were sorted with thematic mapping. Several questions submitted by respondents were among the prioritized research questions. A final prioritized list of research questions was disseminated to various funding agencies, and a highly ranked NMIBC research question was included as a priority area in the 2017 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute announcement of pragmatic trial funding. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement is needed to identify high-priority research questions in oncology. The BCAN PSN provides a successful example of an engagement infrastructure for annual research prioritization in bladder cancer. The creation of an engagement network sets the groundwork for additional phases of engagement, including design, conduct, and dissemination. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2018.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2018 version of the guidelines, including implications of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual on treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and incorporating newly approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies into treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease.

Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2016.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the major recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer based on the review of the evidence in conjunction with the expert opinion of the panel. Recent updates include (1) refining the recommendation of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin, (2) strengthening the recommendations for perioperative systemic chemotherapy, and (3) incorporating immunotherapy into second-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights further discuss factors that affect integration of these recommendations into clinical practice.

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.

Association of Molecular Subtypes with Pathologic Response, PFS, and OS in a Phase II Study of COXEN with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Coexpression Extrapolation (COXEN) gene expression model with chemotherapy-specific scores [for methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, cisplatin (ddMVAC) and gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] was developed to identify responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We investigated RNA-based molecular subtypes as additional predictive biomarkers for NAC response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients treated in S1314. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 237 patients were randomized between four cycles of ddMVAC (51%) and GC (49%). On the basis of Affymetrix transcriptomic data, we determined subtypes using three classifiers: TCGA (k = 5), Consensus (k = 6), and MD Anderson (MDA; k = 3) and assessed subtype association with path response to NAC and determined associations with COXEN. We also tested whether each classifier contributed additional predictive power when added to a model based on predefined stratification (strat) factors (PS 0 vs. 1; T2 vs. T3, T4a). RESULTS: A total of 155 patients had gene expression results, received at least three of four cycles of NAC, and had pT-N response based on radical cystectomy. TCGA three-group classifier basal-squamous (BS)/neuronal, luminal (Lum), Lum infiltrated, and GC COXEN score yielded the largest AUCs for pT0 (0.59, P = 0.28; 0.60, P = 0.18, respectively). For downstaging (

Critical analysis of contemporary clinical research in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial cancer: a report from the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network Clinical Trials Working Group.

BACKGROUND: There have been no improvements in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer in the past several decades. A census of contemporary clinical research in this disease was performed to identify potential barriers and opportunities. METHODS: These authors performed a search for clinical trials exploring interventions in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial cancer, using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Data extracted from the registry included title, recruitment status, interventions, sponsor, phase, enrollment, study design, and study sites. RESULTS: Among 120 eligible trials exploring interventions in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial cancer, 73% were phase 2 and 73% were nonrandomized. The majority (63%) involved treatment in the metastatic disease state. The median planned enrollment size per trial was 45 patients (interquartile range, 47 patients). The majority of trials (55%) involved ≤ 3 study sites. Trials most commonly explored interventions in the first-line metastatic (30%) or second-line metastatic (37%) settings. Targeted therapeutics were studied in 58% of the trials. Among 56 trials that completed enrollment, the median time to complete accrual was 50 months (range, 10-109 months), and these trials enrolled a median of 40 patients per trial (interquartile range, 44 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of contemporary clinical trials in muscle-invasive and metastatic urothelial cancer are small, nonrandomized, phase 2 trials involving 1 to 3 study sites. Enhanced communication and collaboration among the urothelial cancer community, and other stakeholders, is needed to facilitate the design and conduct of trials capable of expediting progress in this disease.

Disparities in Access to Novel Systemic Therapies in Patients With Urinary Tract Cancer: Propagating Access, Policies and Resources Uniformly.

After several decades of therapeutic stagnation, the treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma has met a revolutionary wave, anticipated by the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and followed by newer therapeutic options in the post-ICI setting. These achievements were made in a very short time-frame, thus making the treatment of this disease particularly susceptible to geographical health disparity due to the differences in healthcare systems and approval processes of the regulatory authorities. Furthermore, additional barriers to access innovative care are represented by a limited coverage of clinical trials availability, that is consistent in focusing on selected geographical areas, across trials and clinical settings. Here, we present the current picture of new drug approvals in urothelial carcinoma worldwide, and we also focus our considerations onto the spectrum of ongoing trial inclusion possibilities, trying to understand what are the current gaps in clinical research and routine practice, identifying a way to move forward.

Bladder cancer patient and provider perspectives on smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the most common risk factor for bladder cancer and is associated with adverse clinical and cancer-related outcomes. Increasing understanding of the patient and provider perspectives on smoking cessation may provide insight into improving smoking cessation rates among bladder cancer survivors. We sought to inform strategies for providers promoting cessation efforts and help patients quit smoking. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process with multidisciplinary input from bladder cancer providers, researchers, and a patient advocate, 2 surveys were created for bladder cancer patients and providers. Surveys included multiple-choice questions and free answers. The survey was administered electronically and queried participants' perspectives on barriers and facilitators associated with smoking cessation. Survey responses were anonymous, and participants were provided with a $20 Amazon gift card for participating. Patients were approached through the previously established Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Patient Survey Network, an online bladder cancer patient and caregiver community. Providers were recruited from the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) and the Large Urology Group Practice Association (LUGPA). RESULTS: From May to June 2021, 308 patients and 103 providers completed their respective surveys. Among patients who quit smoking, most (64%) preferred no pharmacologic intervention ("cold turkey") followed by nicotine replacement therapy (28%). Repeated efforts at cessation commonly occurred, and 67% reported making more than one attempt at quitting prior to eventual smoking cessation. Approximately 1 in 10 patients were unaware of the association between bladder cancer and smoking. Among providers, 75% felt that barriers to provide cessation include a lack of clinical time, adequate training, and reimbursement concerns. However, 79% of providers endorsed a willingness to receive continuing education on smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder cancer patients utilize a variety of cessation strategies with "cold turkey" being the most used method, and many patients make multiple attempts at smoking cessation. Providers confront multiple barriers to conducting smoking cessation, including inadequate time and training in cessation methods; however, most would be willing to receive additional education. These results inform future interventions tailored to bladder cancer clinicians to better support provider efforts to provide smoking cessation counseling.

Phase 2 Trial of Atezolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-unresponsive High-risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: SWOG S1605.

BACKGROUND: Although radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), many patients are ineligible for surgery or elect bladder preservation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in BCG-unresponsive high-risk NMIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a single-arm phase 2 trial in patients with BCG-unresponsive high-risk NMIBC who were ineligible for or declined RC. INTERVENTION: Intravenous atezolizumab every 3 wk for 1 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (CR) rate for patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS) determined via mandatory biopsy at 6 mo. Event-free survival (EFS) at 18 mo for patients with non-CIS tumors and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were key secondary endpoints. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 172 patients enrolled in the trial, 166 received at least one dose of atezolizumab (safety analysis) and 129 were eligible (efficacy analysis). Of the 74 patients with CIS, 20 (27%) experienced a CR at 6 mo. The median duration of response was 17 mo, and 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-77%) of the responses were durable to at least 12 mo. The 18-mo actuarial EFS rate among 55 patients with Ta/T1 disease was 49% (90% CI 38-60%). Twelve of 129 eligible patients experienced progression to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 26 patients (16%), including three treatment-related deaths. The study was limited by the small sample size and a high rate of patient ineligibility. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of atezolizumab observed among patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC is similar to results from similar trials with other agents, but did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold. Modest efficacy needs to be balanced with a significant rate of TRAEs and the risk of disease progression when considering systemic immunotherapy in early-stage bladder cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We tested intravenous immunotherapy (atezolizumab) in patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer that recurred after BCG (bacillus Calmette-Guérin) treatment. Although we found similar outcomes to previous trials, the benefit of this therapy is modest and needs to be carefully balanced with the significant risk of side effects. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02844816.

Long-term Outcomes from a Phase 2 Study of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (SWOG S1314; NCT02177695).

BACKGROUND: The COXEN gene expression model was evaluated for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a secondary analysis of the association of each COXEN score with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) and by treatment arm. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a randomized phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) or dose-dense methotrexate-vinblastine-adriamycin-cisplatin (ddMVAC) in MIBC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to ddMVAC (every 14 d) or GC (every 21 d), both for four cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: EFS events were defined as progression or death before scheduled surgery, a decision to not undergo surgery, recurrence, or death due to any cause after surgery. Cox regression was used to evaluate the COXEN score or treatment arm association with EFS and OS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 167 evaluable patients were included in the COXEN analysis. The COXEN scores were not significantly prognostic for OS or EFS in the respective arms, but the GC COXEN score had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.99; p = 0.047) when the arms were pooled. In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 227), there was no significant difference between ddMVAC and GC for OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.40; p = 0.57) or EFS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.26; p = 0.45). Among the 192 patients who underwent surgery, pathologic response (pT0 vs downstaging vs no response) was strongly correlated with superior postsurgical survival (5-yr OS 90%, 89% and 52%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The COXEN GC score has prognostic value for patients receiving cisplatin-based neoadjuvant treatment. The randomized, prospective design provides estimates of OS and EFS for GC and ddMVAC in this population. Pathologic response (

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.

Improving Patient Advocacy in NCI Scientific Steering Committees and Task Forces.

This commentary discusses improving research advocacy as part of National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trial activities in scientific steering committees and task forces between 2016 and 2020. Before 2016, the focus of patient advocate input on clinical trial concept evaluation was assessing accrual feasibility. By leveraging informal benchmarking and an outside-in perspective, the NCI patient advocate steering committee, comprised of NCI scientific steering committee and task force advocates, has recalibrated research advocacy within and across its clinical trial concepts. Additionally, by focusing on research advocacy fundamentals, the NCI patient advocate steering committee clarified the scope of the research advocate roles, focused its mission, defined and developed competencies, measured engagement, and created collateral and processes that support better interactions and greater value generation. Continuous improvement in the collateral and the underlying approaches, along with calibrating their application and monitoring results, will be necessary to keep pace with the science and further enhance the value of cancer clinical trial research advocacy. The road ahead should build on these fundamentals and include increased emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical trial and research advocacy participants and the supporting infrastructure.

Refining neoadjuvant therapy clinical trial design for muscle-invasive bladder cancer before cystectomy: a joint US Food and Drug Administration and Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network workshop.

The success of the use of novel therapies in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma has contributed to growing interest in evaluating these therapies at earlier stages of the disease. However, trials evaluating these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting must have clearly defined study elements and appropriately selected end points to ensure the applicability of the trial and enable interpretation of the study results. To advance the development of rational trial design, a public workshop jointly sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network convened in August 2019. Clinicians, clinical trialists, radiologists, biostatisticians, patients, advocates and other stakeholders discussed key elements and end points when designing trials of neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), identifying opportunities to refine eligibility, design and end points for neoadjuvant trials in MIBC. Although pathological complete response (pCR) is already being used as a co-primary end point, both individual-level and trial-level surrogacy for time-to-event end points, such as event-free survival or overall survival, remain incompletely characterized in MIBC. Additionally, use of pCR is limited by heterogeneity in pathological evaluation and the fact that the magnitude of pCR improvement that might translate into a meaningful clinical benefit remains unclear. Given existing knowledge gaps, capture of highly granular patient-related, tumour-related and treatment-related characteristics in the current generation of neoadjuvant MIBC trials will be critical to informing the design of future trials.

Future Directions in Bladder Cancer Treatment and Research-The Patient Advocates' Perspective.

Bladder cancer remains a deadly disease despite recent advances. Research advances should focus on improving quality of life for bladder cancer patients from time of initial diagnosis through end of life, with an emphasis on stratifying patients into appropriate risk categories and developing effective treatments to eliminate the need for bladder removal. Future research priorities should be prevention of disease, improved diagnostics, increased understanding of variant histologies and subgroups and targeting treatments, more effective therapies across disease states, advances in survivorship care to improve quality of life, improved access to clinical trials, and continued partnerships and multidisciplinary collaborations.