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.

Immune Modulation with RANKL Blockade through Denosumab Treatment in Patients with Cancer.

Denosumab is a fully human mAb that binds receptor activator of NFκB ligand (RANKL). It is routinely administered to patients with cancer to reduce the incidence of new bone metastasis. RANK-RANKL interactions regulate bone turnover by controlling osteoclast recruitment, development, and activity. However, these interactions also can regulate immune cells including dendritic cells and medullary thymic epithelial cells. Inhibition of the latter results in reduced thymic negative selection of T cells and could enhance the generation of tumor-specific T cells. We examined whether administering denosumab could modify modulate circulating immune cells in patients with cancer. Blood was collected from 23 patients with prostate cancer and 3 patients with renal cell carcinoma, all of whom had advanced disease and were receiving denosumab, prior to and during denosumab treatment. Using high-dimensional mass cytometry, we found that denosumab treatment by itself induced modest effects on circulating immune cell frequency and activation. We also found minimal changes in the circulating T-cell repertoire and the frequency of new thymic emigrants with denosumab treatment. However, when we stratified patients by whether they were receiving chemotherapy and/or steroids, patients receiving these concomitant treatments showed significantly greater immune modulation, including an increase in the frequency of natural killer cells early and classical monocytes later. We also saw broad induction of CTLA-4 and TIM3 expression in circulating lymphocytes and some monocyte populations. These findings suggest that denosumab treatment by itself has modest immunomodulatory effects, but when combined with conventional cancer treatments, can lead to the induction of immunologic checkpoints. See related Spotlight by Nasrollahi and Davar, p. 383.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer Who Are Ineligible for Cisplatin and Treated With First-Line Enfortumab Vedotin Alone or With Pembrolizumab.

PURPOSE: Locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) affects patients' quality of life (QOL) and functioning. We describe the impact of first-line (1L) enfortumab vedotin (EV) alone or with pembrolizumab (P) on QOL/functioning/symptoms in patients with la/mUC who were cisplatin-ineligible from EV-103 Cohort K. METHODS: In this phase Ib/II trial, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to EV + P or EV monotherapy (mono). Exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, once per week for cycles 1-3, and then in every cycle through the end of treatment. Changes in scores from baseline to week 24, reported as least squares mean (standard error), were assessed by mixed models for repeated measures. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: Of 149 patients treated, 65 (EV + P) and 63 (EV mono) comprised the PRO analysis set. For EV + P, EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL was maintained through week 24 with improvements in emotional functioning, pain, and insomnia. Clinically meaningful improvements were seen in EORTC QLQ-C30 pain after EV + P at weeks 12 (-14.41 [3.14]) and 24 (-14.99 [3.56]) and BPI-SF worst pain at week 24 (-2.07 [0.37]). For EV mono, EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL remained stable with clinically meaningful improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-12.55 [4.27]), insomnia (-14.46 [4.69]), and constipation (-10.09 [4.35]) at week 24. There were small-to-moderate improvements in BPI-SF worst pain at week 24. CONCLUSION: EV + P in patients with la/mUC who were cisplatin-ineligible was associated with preservation or improvement of QOL/functioning/symptoms. Improvement in pain was seen in both PRO instruments and treatment arms. These data complement clinical outcomes of 1L EV + P.

Initial Experience with 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET Imaging in Patients with Urothelial Cancer.

Improved imaging modalities are needed to accurately stage patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Imaging with small-molecule ligands or inhibitors of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is a promising modality that has demonstrated initial efficacy across a broad range of tumors. We present our experience with the novel FAP-peptide binder 68Ga-FAP-2286 in patients with MIBC. Methods: Patients with histopathologically confirmed bladder cancer who had either localized disease at diagnosis (localized cohort, n = 13) or known metastatic disease (metastatic cohort, n = 8) were imaged with 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET as part of a clinical trial (NCT04621435). The SUVmax of 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET-positive lesions and lesion size were documented. In patients who had available 18F-FDG PET performed within 45 d of 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET (n = 5), uptake on the 2 scans was compared. When there was a discrepancy between imaging modalities on retrospective review, biopsy of suggestive lesions was performed as the standard of care. Results: In the metastatic and localized cohorts, 36 and 18 68Ga-FAP-2286-avid lesions, respectively, were identified across multiple anatomic locations, including lymph nodes, visceral metastases, and bones. Fourteen of 36 lesions in the metastatic cohort and 14 of 18 lesions in the localized cohort were lymph nodes measuring less than 1 cm. Among lesions measuring less than 0.5 cm, 0.5-1 cm, and more than 1 cm, average SUVmax was 5.2 ± 2.6, 9.6 ± 3.7, and 13.0 ± 4.3, respectively, in the metastatic cohort and 10.5 ± 5.1, 10.8 ± 5.7, and 9.9 ± 5.4, respectively, in the localized cohort. Five patients had 18F-FDG PET available for comparison. The average SUVmax for lesions avid on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET and 18F-FDG PET was 9.9 ± 3.4 versus 4.2 ± 1.9, respectively (n = 16 lesions). For 3 patients in the localized cohort, 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET informed clinical management, including identification of both false-positive findings on 18F-FDG PET and false-negative findings on conventional CT. Conclusion: 68Ga-FAP-2286 imaging is highly sensitive in patients with urothelial cancer and is effective in identifying metastatic lesions across a variety of anatomic sites, including subcentimeter lymph nodes that would not have raised suspicion on conventional scans. This novel imaging modality may inform clinical decision-making in patients with MIBC both by refining local nodal staging and by defining metastatic disease that would otherwise be undetectable on conventional imaging.

A plain language summary exploring a new treatment combination for untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary provides the results of a study of two treatments for cancer, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, that were studied together against locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC), a cancer that occurs most commonly in the bladder. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In the 45 patients studied, around 16% did have serious side effects, but most side effects were manageable. Twenty-four percent of patients, however, stopped the study treatment because of their side effects. Within about 2 months of starting treatment, most patients' (73%) tumors were smaller and stayed smaller, on average, for more than 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer when they cannot receive the typical treatment, cisplatin. Advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer is a type of cancer where the cancer has already spread outside of the bladder or urinary tract.

Single-dose 177Lu-PSMA-617 followed by maintenance pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an open-label, dose-expansion, phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to have limited activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine whether a single dose of lutetium-177 [177Lu]-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was safe and could induce durable clinical benefit. METHODS: We did an open-label, dose-expansion, phase 1 study at the University of California, San Francisco (San Fransisco, CA, USA). Eligible patients were men aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had progression on one or more androgen signalling inhibitors, and at least three PSMA-avid lesions on 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography. In part A, patients were enrolled sequentially to one of three schedules in which a single dose of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7·4 GBq) was given intravenously 28 days before (schedule 1), concomitant with (schedule 2), or 21 days after (schedule 3) the start of maintenance intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). In part B, 25 patients were enrolled using the recommended phase 2 schedule. The primary endpoint in part A was determination of the recommended phase 2 schedule, and in part B, the objective response rate. The analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or 177Lu-PSMA-617. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03805594. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2019 and May 7, 2022, 43 male patients were enrolled (n=18 part A [six patients per schedule]; n=25 part B), with a median follow-up of 16·5 months (IQR 12·2-21·9). Schedule 1 was selected as the recommended phase 2 schedule for part B, on the basis of safety and feasibility of administration observed in part A. In part B, 14 (56%; 95% CI 35-76) of 25 patients had a confirmed objective response. Two (5%) of 43 patients had a treatment-related adverse event of grade 3 or worse (grade 3 arthritis in schedule 2, grade 3 pneumonitis in schedule 3). One serious adverse event (one death due to aspiration pneumonia) and no treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: A single priming dose of 177Lu-PSMA-617 followed by pembrolizumab maintenance was safe and had encouraging preliminary activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Merck.

Atezolizumab plus Magrolimab, Niraparib, or Tocilizumab versus Atezolizumab Monotherapy in Platinum-Refractory Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Phase Ib/II Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized Umbrella Study (MORPHEUS Urothelial Carcinoma).

PURPOSE: The MORPHEUS platform was designed to identify early efficacy signals and evaluate the safety of novel immunotherapy combinations across cancer types. The phase Ib/II MORPHEUS-UC trial (NCT03869190) is evaluating atezolizumab plus magrolimab, niraparib, or tocilizumab in platinum-refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Additional treatment combinations were evaluated and will be reported separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had locally advanced or mUC that progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety and exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were randomized to receive either atezolizumab plus magrolimab (n = 16), atezolizumab plus niraparib (n = 15), atezolizumab plus tocilizumab (n = 15), or atezolizumab monotherapy (control; n = 30). No additive benefit in ORR, PFS, or OS was seen in the treatment arms versus the control. The best confirmed ORR was 26.7% with atezolizumab plus magrolimab, 6.7% with atezolizumab plus niraparib, 20.0% with atezolizumab plus tocilizumab, and 27.6% with atezolizumab monotherapy. Overall, the treatment combinations were tolerable, and adverse events were consistent with each agent's known safety profile. Trends were observed for shrinkage of programmed death-ligand 1-positive tumors (atezolizumab, atezolizumab plus magrolimab, atezolizumab plus tocilizumab), inflamed tumors, or tumors with high mutational burden (atezolizumab), and immune excluded tumors (atezolizumab plus magrolimab). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated regimens in MORPHEUS-UC were tolerable. However, response rates for the combinations did not meet the criteria for further development in platinum-experienced locally advanced or mUC.

Impact of Squamous Histology on Clinical Outcomes and Molecular Profiling in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Enfortumab Vedotin.

INTRODUCTION: Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation (UCS) is associated with increased resistance to chemotherapy, but outcomes associated with newer therapies approved in this space over the last 5 to 10 years are less well defined. We investigated clinical outcomes and molecular profiling of patients with UCS treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and/or Enfortumab vedotin (EV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of UC patients treated with ICI and/or EV. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between pure UC (pUC) and UCS using X2 and log-rank tests, respectively. Prevalence of the most commonly detected somatic alterations were also compared between the 2 histologic subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients (40 UCS, 120 pUC) were identified for this analysis. Among 151 patients treated with ICI (38 UCS, 113 pUC), UCS patients had a shorter mPFS (1.9 vs. 4.8 months, P < 0.01) and mOS (9.2 vs. 20.7 months, P < 0.01) compared to pUC. Among 37 patients treated with EV (12 UCS, 25 pUC), UCS patients had a lower ORR (17% vs. 70%, P < 0.01) and shorter mPFS (3.4 vs. 15.8 months, P < 0.01). UCS samples were enriched for CDKN2A, CDKN2B, PIK3CA, while pUC samples were enriched for ERBB2 alterations. CONCLUSION: In this single-center retrospective analysis, patients with UCS had a distinct somatic genomic profile relative to patients with pUC. Patients with UCS also had inferior outcomes to ICIs and EV compared to patients with pUC.

Engaging Men of Diverse Racial and Ethnic Groups With Advanced Prostate Cancer in the Design of an mHealth Diet and Exercise Intervention: Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Healthy diet and exercise can improve quality of life and prognosis among men with prostate cancer. Understanding the perceived barriers to lifestyle change and patient preferences in a diverse cohort of men with prostate cancer is necessary to inform mobile health (mHealth) lifestyle interventions and increase health equity. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multisite study to understand the preferences, attitudes, and health behaviors related to diet and lifestyle in this patient population. This report focuses on the qualitative findings from 4 web-based focus groups comprising a racially and ethnically diverse group of patients with advanced prostate cancer who are on androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: We used grounded theory analyses including open, axial, and selective coding to generate codes. Qualitative data were analyzed as a whole rather than by focus group to optimize data saturation and the transferability of results. We present codes and themes that emerged for lifestyle intervention design and provide recommendations and considerations for future mHealth intervention studies. RESULTS: Overall, 14 men participated in 4 racially and ethnically concordant focus groups (African American or Black: 3/14, 21%; Asian American: 3/14, 21%; Hispanic or Latino: 3/14, 21%; and White: 5/14, 36%). Analyses converged on 7 interwoven categories: context (home environment, access, competing priorities, and lifestyle programs), motivation (accountability, discordance, feeling supported, fear, and temptation), preparedness (health literacy, technological literacy, technological preferences, trust, readiness to change, identity, adaptability, and clinical characteristics), data-driven design (education, psychosocial factors, and quality of life), program mechanics (communication, materials, customization, and being holistic), habits (eg, dietary habits), and intervention impressions. These results suggest actionable pathways to increase program intuitiveness. Recommendations for future mHealth intervention design and implementation include but are not limited to assessment at the individual, household, and neighborhood levels to support a tailored intervention; prioritization of information to disseminate based on individuals' major concerns and the delivery of information based on health and technological literacy and communication preferences; prescribing a personalized intervention based on individuals' baseline responses, home and neighborhood environment, and support network; and incorporating strategies to foster engagement (eg, responsive and relevant feedback systems) to aid participant decision-making and behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing a patient's social context, motivation, and preparedness is necessary when tailoring a program to each patient's needs in all racial and ethnic groups. Addressing the patients' contexts and motivation and preparedness related to diet and exercise including the household, access (to food and exercise), competing priorities, health and technological literacy, readiness to change, and clinical characteristics will help to customize the intervention to the participant. These data support a tailored approach leveraging the identified components and their interrelationships to ensure that mHealth lifestyle interventions will engage and be effective in racially and ethnically diverse patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05324098; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05324098.

Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Somatic alterations of TP53 and MDM2 associated with response to enfortumab vedotin in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for patients with treatment-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), however data on biomarkers of response is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively identified all aUC patients at our institution who received EV monotherapy and had next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Patients were considered responders if they had a complete response or partial response on restaging scans during treatment. Observed response rate (ORR) was evaluated by local investigator and compared between responders and non-responders using Chi-squared test. A univariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard test to assess for associations between baseline characteristics and most common somatic alterations (in ≥10% of patients) with patient survival outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. Somatic alterations were then individually evaluated in separate multivariate models while accounting for patient and clinical characteristics using Cox regression models. Results: Among 29 patients treated with EV monotherapy, 27 had available NGS data. Median age was 70, 24 (83%) were men, 19 (62%) were Caucasian, 15 (52%) had pure urothelial histology and 22 (76%) had primary tumor in the bladder. ORR was 41%, and PFS and OS for the overall cohort were 5.1 months and 10.2 months. Responders were enriched among patients with TP53, KDM6A and MDM2 alterations. Patients with these alterations, as well as those with composite TP53/MDM2 alterations (alterations in either TP53 or MDM2), also had increased ORR with EV treatment compared to patients without these alterations. In the univariable analysis, baseline albumin level ≥ 3.0g/dL and presence of composite TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged OS. Baseline ECOG 0/1, TP53 alterations and TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged PFS. In the multivariable analysis, TP53 and TP53/MDM2 alterations were genomic markers predictive of improved PFS after accounting for the relevant clinical characteristics. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective analysis of aUC patients treated with EV, presence of TP53 or MDM2 somatic alterations, lower ECOG PS scores (ECOG 0 or 1) and higher albumin levels (≥3 g/dL) were associated with improved outcomes with EV treatment. Prospective and external validation of these findings in larger cohorts is warranted.

Quality of life for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer participating in an aerobic and resistance exercise pilot intervention.

BACKGROUND: Following a prostate cancer diagnosis, disease and treatment-related symptoms may result in diminished quality of life (QoL). Whether exercise improves QoL in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is not fully understood. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of a 12-week remotely monitored exercise program among men with mCRPC. Here we report qualitative changes in QoL, consistent with the guidelines for pilot trials. Men were randomized to control, aerobic exercise, or resistance exercise. Exercise prescriptions were based on baseline cardiorespiratory and strength assessments. QoL outcomes were evaluated using self-reported questionnaires (e.g., QLQ-C30, PROMIS Fatigue, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), EPIC-26) collected at baseline and 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 25 men were randomized (10 control, 8 aerobic, 7 resistance). Men were predominately white (76%) with a median age of 71 years (range: 51-84) and 10.5 years (range: 0.9-26.3) post prostate cancer diagnosis. The men reported poor sleep quality and high levels of fatigue at enrollment. Other baseline QoL metrics were relatively high. Compared to the controls at 12 weeks, the resistance arm reported some improvements in social function and urinary irritative/obstruction symptoms while the aerobic arm reported some improvements in social function and urinary incontinence, yet worsening nausea/vomiting. Compared to the resistance arm, the aerobic arm reported worse urinary irritative/obstruction symptoms and self-rated QoL, yet some improvements in emotional function, insomnia, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-month exercise intervention pilot appeared to have modest effects on QoL among mCRPC survivors on ADT. Given the feasibility, acceptability, and safety demonstrated in prior analyses, evaluation of the effect of the intervention on QoL in a larger sample and for extended duration may still be warranted.

Serial stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by novel PET-based radiotracers.

BACKGROUND: Radiopharmaceuticals, including Ga-68-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 and F-18-Fluciclovine, are increasingly used to inform therapies for prostate cancer (CaP). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to PET-detected oligometastatic CaP has been shown to improve progression free survival (PFS) and delay androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to observation. For men who subsequently develop oligorecurrent CaP, outcomes following second SBRT are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Eligibility criteria included patients with oligometastatic (1-5 lesions) CaP detected on PSMA or Fluciclovine PET who underwent 2 consecutive SBRT courses to tracer-avid sites. Data on stage, tracer type, concurrent systemic therapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses for first SBRT (SBRT1) and second SBRT (SBRT2) were collected. Outcomes included PSA decline ≥50% (PSA50), PFS after SBRT2, and ADT initiation or intensification-free survival after SBRT2. Factors potentially associated with PSA50 after SBRT2 was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. Factors potentially associated with PFS and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival after SBRT2 were evaluated with separate multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were identified. At SBRT2, oligorecurrence was detected on PSMA and Fluciclovine PET in 17 (68%) and 8 (32%) patients, respectively. Fifteen (60%) patients had castration-sensitive disease and 10 (40%) had castration-resistant disease. After SBRT2, 16 (64%) achieved a PSA50 response, median PFS was 11.0mo, and median ADT initiation/intensification-free survival was 23.2mo. On multivariable analysis, maximum percent change in PSA after SBRT1 (OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.88-0.99, P = 0.046) and concurrent change in systemic therapy (OR 21.61, 95%CI 1.12-417.9, P = 0.042) were associated with PSA50 responses after SBRT2. PSA50 response after SBRT1 was associated with improved PFS (HR 0.36, 95%CI 0.00-0.42, P = 0.008) and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival (HR 0.07, 95%CI 0.01-0.68, P = 0.021) after SBRT2. From SBRT1 to last follow-up (median 48 months), 7 (28%) patients remained ADT-free. CONCLUSIONS: Serial SBRT for oligometastatic CaP detected on PSMA or Fluciclovine PET is feasible and can achieve PSA declines, with or without systemic therapy. Degree of biochemical response to first SBRT warrants further study as a potential predictor of PSA response, PFS, and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival following a subsequent SBRT course. This preliminary evidence provides rationale for larger, prospective studies of this strategy.

Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab in Previously Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC); however, toxicity is substantial, responses are rarely durable, and many patients with la/mUC are ineligible. Each enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab have shown a survival benefit versus chemotherapy in UC, are not restricted by cisplatin eligibility, and warrant investigation as a first-line (1L) combination therapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing phase Ib/II, multicenter, open-label study, 1L cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC received enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg once daily on days 1 and 8 and pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) intravenously once daily in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points included confirmed objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients received enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were peripheral sensory neuropathy (55.6%), fatigue (51.1%), and alopecia (48.9%). Twenty-nine patients (64.4%) had grade 3 or higher TRAEs; the most common were increased lipase (17.8%), maculopapular rash (11.1%), and fatigue (11.1%). One death (2.2%) was classified as a TRAE. The confirmed objective response rate after a median of nine cycles was 73.3% with a complete response rate of 15.6%. The median DOR and median OS were 25.6 months and 26.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed a manageable safety profile. Most patients experienced tumor shrinkage. The median DOR and median OS exceeding 2 years in a cisplatin-ineligible patient population make this a promising combination currently under investigation in a phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223856).

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.

Case Report: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of HIV Positive Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated With Immunotherapy: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Background: The treatment of metastatic prostate cancer has been revolutionized with the advent of many targeted therapies, including immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab has demonstrated benefit in the treatment of certain patients with docetaxel-refractory metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, extrapolation of these data to patients with HIV is limited, as these patients are conventionally excluded from therapeutic clinical trials. This study aims to develop a better understanding of the clinical outcomes of HIV positive patients with prostate cancer treated with immunotherapy. A review of the literature is conducted on the use of immunotherapy in HIV positive patients with prostate cancer, and a summary is presented of two clinical cases from a single institution. Methods: This is a retrospective case report of 2 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and HIV who received treatment with pembrolizumab. Quantitative analysis was performed to summarize patient demographics, clinical history, and outcomes. Results: Two patients with mCRPC and HIV on highly active antiretroviral therapy were identified. Both individuals had biochemical and radiographic response to treatment with pembrolizumab. The duration of response for individual 1 is >31 months and 14 months for individual 2. Neither patient had immune-related adverse events or decreased suppression of their HIV infection. One patient died from disease progression after 14 months of treatment and the other remains on treatment with pembrolizumab to date. Conclusion: In this small case series, pembrolizumab appears to be a safe and effective treatment option for HIV positive patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

APOBEC Mutational Signature and Tumor Mutational Burden as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Response in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

Introduction: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and APOBEC mutational signatures are potential prognostic markers in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Their utility in predicting outcomes to specific therapies in aUC warrants additional study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive UC cases assessed with UCSF500, an institutional assay that uses hybrid capture enrichment of target DNA to interrogate 479 common cancer genes. Hypermutated tumors (HM), defined as having TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb, were also assessed for APOBEC mutational signatures, while non-HM (NHM) tumors were not assessed due to low TMB. The logrank test was used to determine if there were differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patient groups of interest. Results: Among 75 aUC patients who had UCSF500 testing, 46 patients were evaluable for TMB, of which 19 patients (41%) had HM tumors and the rest had NHM tumors (27 patients). An additional 29 patients had unknown TMB status. Among 19 HM patients, all 16 patients who were evaluable for analysis had APOBEC signatures. HM patients (N=19) were compared with NHM patients (N=27) and had improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 35.7 months, p=0.06) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.04). Patients with APOBEC (N=16) were compared with remaining 56 patients, comprised of 27 NHM patients and 29 patients with unknown TMB, showing APOBEC patients to have improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 44.5 months, p=0.05) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.05). Neither APOBEC nor HM status were associated with response to immunotherapy. Conclusions: In a large, single-institution aUC cohort assessed with UCSF500, an institutional NGS panel, HM tumors were common and all such tumors that were evaluated for mutational signature analysis had APOBEC signatures. APOBEC signatures and high TMB were prognostic of improved OS from diagnosis and both analyses also predicted inferior outcomes with chemotherapy treatment.

A Phase Ib/II Study of the CDK4/6 Inhibitor Ribociclib in Combination with Docetaxel plus Prednisone in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Ribociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, demonstrates preclinical antitumor activity in combination with taxanes. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ribociclib plus docetaxel in a phase Ib/II study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC with progression on ≥ 1 androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI). The phase II primary endpoint was 6-month radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) rate, with an alternative hypothesis of 55% versus 35% historical control. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) were collected at baseline and genomically profiled. RESULT: Forty-three patients were enrolled (N = 30 in phase II). Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed (grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia). The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and schedule was docetaxel 60 mg/m2 every 21 days plus ribociclib 400 mg/day on days 1-4 and 8-15 with filgrastim on days 5-7. At the RP2D, neutropenia was the most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event (37%); however, no cases of febrile neutropenia were observed. The primary endpoint was met; the 6-month rPFS rate was 65.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 50.6%-85.5%; P = 0.005] and median rPFS was 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.0-10.0 months). Thirty-two percent of evaluable patients achieved a PSA50 response. Nonamplified MYC in baseline CTCs was associated with longer rPFS (P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of intermittent ribociclib plus every-3-weeks docetaxel demonstrated acceptable toxicity and encouraging efficacy in ARSI-pretreated mCRPC. Genomic profiling of CTCs may enrich for those most likely to derive benefit. Further evaluation in a randomized clinical trial is warranted.