A Podcast on Practical Considerations in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Cancer Receiving First-Line Cisplatin- or Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy Followed by Avelumab Maintenance in a Changing Therapeutic Landscape.

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma for decades, based on its proven efficacy and well-characterized safety profile. Although enfortumab vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab showed superior efficacy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the EV-302 phase 3 trial, common and potentially cumulative toxicities associated with EV plus pembrolizumab may make this combination less suitable for some patients, such as those with pre-existing neuropathy, hyperglycemia, or hepatic impairment, or patients likely to have favorable outcomes with platinum-based chemotherapy. The availability of EV plus pembrolizumab in various countries may also be limited by financial considerations. Thus, platinum-based chemotherapy is likely to remain a valuable option for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Eligibility for cisplatin- or carboplatin-based regimens can be determined by assessing renal function, performance status, and specific comorbidities. In cisplatin-eligible and -ineligible patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy, avelumab first-line maintenance is standard of care based on findings from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, which showed that avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone across clinically relevant subgroups. Adverse events associated with avelumab were generally consistent with those observed with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, and long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns with prolonged treatment. Efficacy benefits and safety profiles were similar in patients who received avelumab first-line maintenance after cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The effectiveness and safety of avelumab first-line maintenance have been confirmed in several real-world studies. Overall, these data support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance for all platinum-treated patients without disease progression. In this podcast, we discuss the evolving role of platinum-based chemotherapy in this disease setting in the context of EV-302 trial results and describe practical considerations in patients receiving first-line cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy.

Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancers with Deleterious CDK12 Alterations in the Phase 2 IMPACT Trial.

PURPOSE: CDK12 inactivation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may predict immunotherapy responses. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mCRPC with deleterious CDK12 alterations and any prior therapies except ICI. Cohort A received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) with nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. Cohort C received nivolumab alone 480 mg every 4 weeks. Patients with CDK12-altered nonprostate tumors were enrolled in cohort B and not reported. The primary endpoint was a 50% reduction in PSA (PSA50). Key secondary endpoints included PSA progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: PSA was evaluable in 23 patients in cohort A and 14 in cohort C. Median lines of prior therapy were two in cohorts A and C, including any prior novel hormonal agent (74% and 79%) and chemotherapy (57% and 36%). The PSA50 rate was 9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1%-28%] in cohort A with two responders; neither had microsatellite instability or a tumor mutational burden >10 mutations/megabase. No PSA50 responses occurred in cohort C. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.6-11.4) in cohort A and 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-13.8) in cohort C. Median overall survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-12.3) in cohort A and 13.8 months (95% CI, 3.6-not reached) in cohort C. CONCLUSIONS: There was minimal activity with ICI therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC.

Incidental Coronary Arterial Calcification for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Men With Prostate Cancer Undergoing PET/CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is common among men with prostate cancer and the leading cause of death in this population. There is a need for CV risk assessment tools that can be easily implemented in the prostate cancer treatment setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for recurrent prostate cancer at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 were identified retrospectively. Clinical data and coronary calcification on nongated CT imaging were obtained. The primary outcome was major adverse CV event (MACE; myocardial infarction, coronary or peripheral revascularization, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, or all-cause mortality) occurring within 5 years of PET/CT. RESULTS: Among 354 patients included in the study, there were 98 MACE events that occurred in 74 patients (21%). All-cause mortality was the most common MACE event (35%), followed by coronary revascularization/myocardial infarction (26%) and stroke (19%). Coronary calcification was predictive of MACE (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.4, P = .03) using adjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis. As a comparator, the Framingham risk score was calculated for 198 patients (56%) with complete clinical and laboratory data available. In this subgroup, high baseline Framingham risk (corresponding to 10-year risk of CV disease > 20%) was not predictive of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: MACE was common (21%) in men with recurrent prostate cancer undergoing PET/CT over 5 years of follow-up. Incidental coronary calcification on PET/CT was associated with increased risk of MACE and may have utility as a CV risk predictor that is feasible to implement among all prostate cancer providers.