Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Phase 1 first-in-human dose-escalation study of ANV419 in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced solid tumors.

Patients with advanced cancer, previously treated with immune checkpoint blockade therapy, may retain residual treatment when undergoing the initial infusion of experimental monotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials. ANV419, an antibody-cytokine fusion protein, combines interleukin-2 (IL-2) with an anti-IL-2 monoclonal antibody, aiming to stimulate the expansion of CD8 T and natural killer lymphocytes while restricting regulatory T lymphocytes. In the recent publication of the phase 1 dose escalation study of ANV419, a notable gap exists in detailed information regarding patients' prior antitumoral treatments, specifically programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) targeted monoclonal antibodies. Some patients likely retained residual anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies, potentially influencing the outcomes of ANV419. In a separate clinical cohort, we retrospectively measured the residual concentration of nivolumab and pembrolizumab, revealing persistent serum concentrations of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies even months after treatment cessation. This underscores the importance of comprehensively documenting prior immunotherapy details in clinical trials. Such information is crucial for understanding potential interactions that may impact both immunological and clinical effects.

Optimizing the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing Assays in Patients With Urothelial Carcinoma: Recommendations by the 2023 San Raffaele Retreat Panel.

BACKGROUND: The application of precision medicine in clinical practice implies a thorough evaluation of actionable genomic alterations to streamline therapeutic decision making. Comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor via next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents a great opportunity but also several challenges. During the 2023 San Raffaele Retreat, we aimed to provide expert recommendations for the optimal use of NGS in urothelial carcinoma (UC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi method was utilized, involving a panel of 12 experts in UC from European and United States centers, including oncologists, urologists, pathologists, and translational scientists. An initial survey, conducted before the meeting, delivered 15 statements to the panel. A consensus was defined when ≥70% agreement was reached for each statement. Statements not meeting the consensus threshold were discussed during the meeting. RESULTS: Nine of the 15 statements covering patient selection, cancer characteristics, and type of NGS assay, achieved a consensus during the survey. The remaining six statements addressing the optimal timing of NGS use, the ideal source of tumor biospecimen for NGS testing, and the subsequent need to evaluate the germline nature of certain genomic findings were discussed during the meeting, leading to unanimous agreement at the end of the conference. CONCLUSION: This consensus-building effort addressed multiple unanswered questions regarding the use of NGS in UC. The opinion of experts was in favor of broader use of NGS. In a setting where recommendations/guidelines may be limited, these insights may aid clinicians to provide informed counselling and raise the bar of precision and personalized therapy.

Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1 b/2 study assessed the efficacy, in terms of objective response rate (ORR) of the FGFR1/2/3 kinase inhibitor derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) and FGFR1-3 genetic aberrations (FGFR1-3GA). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label study comprised 5 substudies. In Substudies 1 and 5, patients with mUC with FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib monotherapy (300 mg QD in Substudy 1, 200 mg BID in Substudy 5). In Substudy 2, patients with any solid tumor received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks plus derazantinib 200 or 300 mg QD. In Substudy 3, patients with mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 200 mg BID plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. In Substudy 4, patients with FGFR inhibitor-resistant mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 300 mg QD monotherapy or derazantinib 300 mg QD plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The ORR for Substudies 1 and 5 combined was 4/49 (8.2%, 95% CI: 2.3, 19.6%), based on 4 partial responses. The ORR in Substudy 4 was 1/7 (14.3%, 95% CI: 0.4, 57.9%; 1 partial response for derazantinib 300 mg monotherapy, zero for derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg). In Substudy 2, derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg was identified as a recommended dose for Phase 2. Only 2 patients entered Substudy 3. CONCLUSIONS: Derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab was well-tolerated but did not show sufficient efficacy to warrant further development in mUC.

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).

Development and Validation of an Inflammatory Prognostic Index to Predict Outcomes in Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (a/mUC) patients. Preliminary evidence suggests a prognostic role of inflammatory biomarkers in this setting. We aimed to develop a disease-specific prognostic inflammatory index for a/mUC patients on ICIs. METHODS: Fifteen variables were retrospectively correlated with OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a development (D, n = 264) and a validation (V, n = 132) cohort of platinum-pretreated a/mUC pts receiving ICIs at L2 or further line. A nomogram and inflammatory prognostic index (U-IPI) were developed. The index was also tested in a control cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy only (C, n = 114). RESULTS: The strongest predictors of OS were baseline platelet/lymphocyte (PLR) and neutrophil/lymphocyte (NLR) ratios, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), NLR, and albumin changes at 4 weeks. These were used to build the U-IPI, which can distinctly classify patients into good or poor response groups. The nomogram scoring is significant for PFS and OS (p < 0.001 in the D, V, and combined cohorts) for the immunotherapy (IO) cohort, but not for the control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a baseline systemic inflammatory profile and the absence of early serum inflammatory biomarker changes are associated with significantly better outcomes on ICIs in a/mUC pts. The U-IPI is an easily applicable dynamic prognostic tool for PFS and OS, allowing for the early identification of a sub-group with dismal outcomes that would not benefit from ICIs, while distinguishing another that draws an important benefit.

Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

FGFR-targeted therapeutics: clinical activity, mechanisms of resistance and new directions.

Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling via FGF receptors (FGFR1-4) orchestrates fetal development and contributes to tissue and whole-body homeostasis, but can also promote tumorigenesis. Various agents, including pan-FGFR inhibitors (erdafitinib and futibatinib), FGFR1/2/3 inhibitors (infigratinib and pemigatinib), as well as a range of more-specific agents, have been developed and several have entered clinical use. Erdafitinib is approved for patients with urothelial carcinoma harbouring FGFR2/3 alterations, and futibatinib and pemigatinib are approved for patients with cholangiocarcinoma harbouring FGFR2 fusions and/or rearrangements. Clinical benefit from these agents is in part limited by hyperphosphataemia owing to off-target inhibition of FGFR1 as well as the emergence of resistance mutations in FGFR genes, activation of bypass signalling pathways, concurrent TP53 alterations and possibly epithelial-mesenchymal transition-related isoform switching. The next generation of small-molecule inhibitors, such as lirafugratinib and LOXO-435, and the FGFR2-specific antibody bemarituzumab are expected to have a reduced risk of hyperphosphataemia and the ability to overcome certain resistance mutations. In this Review, we describe the development and current clinical role of FGFR inhibitors and provide perspective on future research directions including expansion of the therapeutic indications for use of FGFR inhibitors, combination of these agents with immune-checkpoint inhibitors and the application of novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Combination With Pembrolizumab for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer That Progressed After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: TROPHY-U-01 Cohort 3.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab is standard therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) who progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, only approximately 21% of patients respond. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a trophoblast cell surface antigen-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with US Food and Drug Administration-accelerated approval to treat patients with locally advanced or mUC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). Here, we report the primary analysis of TROPHY-U-01 cohort 3. METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label phase II study. Patients were CPI-naïve and had mUC progression after platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or ≤12 months in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients received 10 mg/kg of SG once on days 1 and 8 and 200 mg of pembrolizumab once on day 1 of 21-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per central review. Secondary end points included clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per central review, and safety. RESULTS: Cohort 3 included 41 patients (median age 67 years; 83% male; 78% visceral metastases [29% liver]). With a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the ORR was 41% (95% CI, 26.3 to 57.9; 20% complete response rate), CBR was 46% (95% CI, 30.7 to 62.6), median DOR was 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to not estimable [NE]), and median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 10.2). The median overall survival was 12.7 months (range, 10.7-NE). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61% of patients; most common were neutropenia (37%), leukopenia (20%), and diarrhea (20%). CONCLUSION: SG plus pembrolizumab demonstrated a high response rate with an overall manageable toxicity profile in patients with mUC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. No new safety signals were detected. These data support further evaluation of SG plus CPI in mUC.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and previously treated gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from two expansion cohorts of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and has been investigated in gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ). Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is approved for unresectable or metastatic HCC untreated with prior systemic therapy. We evaluated efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy or previously treated GC/GEJ. Methods: COSMIC-021 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960) is an open-label, phase 1b study in solid tumours with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion cohorts, including aHCC (cohort 14) and GC/GEJ (cohort 15). Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with measurable locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease per RECIST version 1.1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1. Findings: Patients were screened between February 14, 2019, and May 7, 2020, and 61 (30 aHCC, 31 GC/GEJ) were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median duration of follow-up was 31.2 months (IQR 28.5-32.7) for aHCC and 30.4 months (28.7-31.9) for GC/GEJ. Objective response rate was 13% (4/30, 95% CI 4-31) for aHCC and 0% (95% CI 0-11) for GC/GEJ. Six (20%) aHCC patients and three (10%) GC/GEJ patients had treatment-related adverse events resulting in discontinuation of either study drug. Interpretation: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab had clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy. Clinical activity of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab was minimal in previously treated GC/GEJ. Funding: Exelixis, Inc., Alameda, CA, USA.

A Phase 2 Randomized Open-label Study of Oral Darolutamide Monotherapy Versus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer (EORTC-GUCG 1532).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Darolutamide is an androgen receptor inhibitor that increases overall survival in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa). This phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of darolutamide as monotherapy without ADT in patients with eugonadal testosterone levels. METHODS: This was a 24-wk, open-label, randomized study of patients with hormone-sensitive, histologically confirmed PCa requiring gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH); an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0/1; and life expectancy >1 yr. All patients received darolutamide 600 mg bid or a commercially available GnRH analog. The primary endpoint is a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, defined as a ≥80% decline at week 24 relative to baseline in the darolutamide study arm. The GnRH arm is used as an internal control. The secondary endpoints included changes in T levels, safety/tolerability, and quality of life. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 61 men enrolled, the median (range) age was 72 yr (53-86 yr); 42.6% of them had metastases. In the darolutamide arm, the evaluable population with available PSA values at baseline and week 24 consisted of 23 patients. Twenty-three (100%) evaluable darolutamide patients achieved a PSA decline of >80% at week 24 (primary endpoint), with a median (range) decrease of -99.1% (-91.9%, -100%). Serum T levels increased by a median (range) of 44.3 (5.7-144.0) at week 24, compared with baseline. In the darolutamide arm, 48.4% of men reported drug-related adverse events (AEs; mostly grade 1 or 2). The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs included gynecomastia (35.5%), fatigue (12.9%), hot flush (12.9%), and hypertension (12.9%). Health-related quality of life measures are descriptive, and GnRH arm results will be presented as an internal reference. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Darolutamide monotherapy was associated with a significant PSA response in nearly all men with hormone-naïve PCa. Testosterone-level changes and most common AEs (gynecomastia, fatigue, hypertension, and hot flush) were consistent with potent androgen receptor inhibition. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we report the first use of darolutamide, a novel antiandrogen, as monotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The study shows that darolutamide induce a profound suppression of prostate-specific antigen in all patients, with a safety profile different from that of ADT.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis from JAVELIN Bladder 100 by Duration of First-line Chemotherapy and Interval Before Maintenance.

BACKGROUND: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (advanced UC) without progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report post hoc analyses of subgroups defined by the duration of first-line chemotherapy and interval before maintenance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC without progression after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and a 4-10-wk interval after chemotherapy (n = 700) were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC or BSC alone. Subgroups were defined by duration (quartile [Q]) and estimated number of cycles of chemotherapy, and interval between chemotherapy and maintenance. The median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint), PFS, and safety were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were as follows: by chemotherapy duration-Q3: 0.63 (0.39-1.00); by number of cycles-four cycles: 0.69 (0.48-1.00), five cycles: 0.98 (0.57-1.71), and six cycles: 0.66 (0.47-0.92); and by interval-4-<6 wk: 0.75 (0.54-1.04), 6-<8 wk: 0.67 (0.43-1.06), and 8-10 wk: 0.69 (0.47-1.02). Results were similar for PFS. Safety was similar across subgroups. All analyses were exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses of OS and PFS in subgroups defined by first-line chemotherapy duration and interval before maintenance were generally consistent with the results in the overall population, with similar safety findings. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Avelumab maintenance treatment helped patients with advanced urothelial cancer without disease progression after at least four cycles of prior chemotherapy, and who started maintenance treatment at least 4 wk after chemotherapy, to live longer.

Antibody drug conjugates in older patients: State of the art.

More than half of cancer cases occur in patients aged 65 years or older. The efficacy and safety of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in older patients remains an unclear subject as available evidence is limited. Geriatric population is underrepresented in clinical trials. Consequently, most of our knowledge regarding innovative therapeutics was studied on a younger population. In this review of published literature, we report the available information on efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of FDA approved ADCs for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors in the geriatric population. We explore the results of clinical trials dedicated for older individuals as well as subgroup analyses of the geriatric population in major trials evaluating these drugs. Available data suggest a similar efficacy in older adults as compared to general population. However, older patients might be prone to a higher rate of adverse events in incidence with a potential impact on quality of life. We lack data to support primary dose reductions or schedule modifications in this category of patients. No pharmacokinetic differences were reported between age groups. It is crucial to encourage the development of clinical trials dedicated to older patients with geriatric parameters (G8 score, G-CODE…) so that results can be more representative of this population outside of clinical trials.

Plain language summary of erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a phase 2 study with long-term follow-up.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of two articles describing the results from a study called BLC2001. The study examined the effect of a medication called erdafitinib on participants with a type of cancer known as urothelial carcinoma that had either spread beyond the bladder or urinary tract into surrounding organs and/or nearby muscles (locally advanced) and was not removable by surgery (unresectable) or had spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). In this study, researchers wanted to learn if erdafitinib was safe and effective at stopping or reducing tumor growth in participants with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain genetic alterations (changes in DNA sequence) in two related genes called fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and 3 (FGFR3). Treatment options for people with this disease are very limited; some may not have responded to other therapies, or their tumors continued to grow after they received other treatments. 212 participants took part in the study. 111 participants were treated with oral (by mouth) erdafitinib at different doses to find a recommended dose regimen. 101 additional participants then received the recommended starting dose of erdafitinib at 8 mg daily with possible increase to 9 mg daily, these participants make up the 8 mg regimen group. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE BLC2001 STUDY IN THE 8 MG REGIMEN GROUP?: Researchers found that tumors decreased in size or completely disappeared in 40% of participants. With approximately 1 year of follow-up, an estimated 55% of participants were still alive, and after 2 years, an estimated 31% of participants were still alive. Common side effects of erdafitinib included high phosphate levels in the blood (hyperphosphatemia), an inflamed and sore mouth, diarrhea, and dry mouth. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Participants had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain FGFR gene alterations that had been treated with erdafitinib after previous chemotherapy and/or a type of medicine that uses the immune system to help the body fight cancer (immunotherapy). The BLC2001 study found that some participants treated with 8 mg erdafitinib had the benefit of a longer period without their cancer growing or spreading to other parts of the body. About 80% of participants achieved some level of disease control where their tumor shrank or remained stable.

Circulating tumor DNA landscape and prognostic impact of acquired resistance to targeted therapies in cancer patients: a national center for precision medicine (PRISM) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of the various targeted therapies currently approved for solid tumors, acquired resistance remains a persistent problem that limits the ultimate effectiveness of these treatments. Polyclonal resistance to targeted therapy has been described in multiple solid tumors through high-throughput analysis of multiple tumor tissue samples from a single patient. However, biopsies at the time of acquired resistance to targeted agents may not always be feasible and may not capture the genetic heterogeneity that could exist within a patient. METHODS: We analyzed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with a large next-generation sequencing panel to characterize the landscape of secondary resistance mechanisms in two independent prospective cohorts of patients (STING: n = 626; BIP: n = 437) with solid tumors who were treated with various types of targeted therapies: tyrosine kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies and hormonal therapies. RESULTS: Emerging alterations involved in secondary resistance were observed in the plasma of up 34% of patients regardless of the type of targeted therapy. Alterations were polyclonal in up to 14% of patients. Emerging ctDNA alterations were associated with significantly shorter overall survival for patients with some tumor types. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive landscape of genomic aberrations indicates that genetic alterations involved in secondary resistance to targeted therapy occur frequently and suggests that the detection of such alterations before disease progression may guide personalized treatment and improve patient outcome.

Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).