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.

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.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.