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.

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.

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.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of AGS15E Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) providing targeted drug delivery have shown antitumor activity in this setting. AGS15E is an investigational ADC that delivers the cytotoxic drug monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing SLITRK6, a UC-associated antigen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase I dose-escalation and expansion trial of AGS15E in patients with mUC (NCT01963052). During dose escalation, AGS15E was administered intravenously at six levels (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 mg/kg), employing a continual reassessment method to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the dose-expansion cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AGS15E in patients with and without prior chemotherapy and with prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Best overall response was also examined. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were recruited, including 33 patients previously treated with CPI. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (54.8%), nausea (37.6%), and decreased appetite (35.5%). Peripheral neuropathy and ocular toxicities occurred at doses of ≥0.75 mg/kg. AGS15E increased in a dose-proportional manner after single- and multiple-dose administration; accumulation was low. Five DLT occurred from 0.50 to 1.25 mg/kg. The RP2D was assessed at 1.00 mg/kg; the objective response rate (ORR) was 35.7% at this dose level. The ORR in the total population and CPI-exposed subgroup were 18.3% and 27.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DLT with AGS15E were observed at 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 mg/kg, with an RP2D of 1.00 mg/kg being determined.

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.

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.

Master Transcription Factor Reprogramming Unleashes Selective Translation Promoting Castration Resistance and Immune Evasion in Lethal Prostate Cancer.

Signaling rewiring allows tumors to survive therapy. Here we show that the decrease of the master regulator microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF) in lethal prostate cancer unleashes eukaryotic initiation factor 3B (eIF3B)-dependent translation reprogramming of key mRNAs conferring resistance to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and promoting immune evasion. Mechanistically, MITF represses through direct promoter binding eIF3B, which in turn regulates the translation of specific mRNAs. Genome-wide eIF3B enhanced cross-linking immunoprecipitation sequencing (eCLIP-seq) showed specialized binding to a UC-rich motif present in subsets of 5' untranslated regions. Indeed, translation of the androgen receptor and major histocompatibility complex I (MHC-I) through this motif is sensitive to eIF3B amount. Notably, pharmacologic targeting of eIF3B-dependent translation in preclinical models sensitizes prostate cancer to ADT and anti-PD-1 therapy. These findings uncover a hidden connection between transcriptional and translational rewiring promoting therapy-refractory lethal prostate cancer and provide a druggable mechanism that may transcend into effective combined therapeutic strategies. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study shows that specialized eIF3B-dependent translation of specific mRNAs released upon downregulation of the master transcription factor MITF confers castration resistance and immune evasion in lethal prostate cancer. Pharmacologic targeting of this mechanism delays castration resistance and increases immune-checkpoint efficacy. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2489.

Tackling FGFR3-driven bladder cancer with a promising synergistic FGFR/HDAC targeted therapy.

Bladder cancer (BC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide and FGFR3 alterations are particularly common in BC. Despite approval of erdafitinib, durable responses for FGFR inhibitors are still uncommon and most patients relapse to metastatic disease. Given the necessity to discover more efficient therapies for BC, herein, we sought to explore promising synergistic combinations for BC with FGFR3 fusions. Our studies confirmed the synergy between FGFR and HDAC inhibitors in vitro and demonstrated its benefits in vivo. Mechanistic studies revealed that quisinostat can downregulate FGFR3 expression by suppressing FGFR3 translation. Additionally, quisinostat can also sensitize BC cells to erdafitinib by downregulating HDGF. Furthermore, the synergy was also confirmed in BC cells with FGFR3 S249C. This study discovers a new avenue for treatment of FGFR3-driven BC and uncovers new mechanistic insights. These preclinical studies pave the way for a direct translation of this combination to early phase clinical trials.

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.

The Efficacy of Enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Oligometastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of ARCHES.

BACKGROUND: Few phase 3 studies have evaluated optimal systemic treatment strategies for patients with oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), who may be at risk of undertreatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes for patients with oligometastatic and polymetastatic HSPC treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a post hoc analysis of data for 927 patients with nonvisceral metastatic HSPC in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d orally) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT with HSPC categorized as oligometastatic (1-5 metastases) or polymetastatic (≥6 metastases). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The treatment effect on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoints was evaluated in terms of the number of metastases. Safety was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HRs). The Brookmeyer and Crowley method was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Kaplan-Meier median values. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Enzalutamide plus ADT improved rPFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001), OS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; p < 0.005), and secondary endpoints in patients with oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease (rPFS: HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.46; p < 0.001; OS: HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were generally similar across subgroups. Limitations include the small numbers of patients with fewer than three metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis demonstrated the utility of enzalutamide, irrespective of metastatic burden or type of oligometastatic disease, and suggests that earlier treatment intensification with systemic potent androgen receptor inhibition is advantageous. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study considered two treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in patients with one to five metastases or six or more metastases. Treatment with enzalutamide plus ADT improved survival and other outcomes over ADT alone, whether patients had few or many metastases.

External Validation of a Prognostic Model of Overall Survival in Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We have previously developed and externally validated a prognostic model of overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel. We sought to externally validate this model in a broader group of men with docetaxel-naïve mCRPC and in specific subgroups (White, Black, Asian patients, different age groups, and specific treatments) and to classify patients into validated two and three prognostic risk groupings on the basis of the model. METHODS: Data from 8,083 docetaxel-naïve mCRPC men randomly assigned on seven phase III trials were used to validate the prognostic model of OS. We assessed the predictive performance of the model by computing the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (tAUC) and validated the two-risk (low and high) and three-risk prognostic groups (low, intermediate, and high). RESULTS: The tAUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.75), and when adjusting for the first-line androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor trial status, the tAUC was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.76). Similar results were observed by the different racial, age, and treatment subgroups. In patients enrolled on first-line AR inhibitor trials, the median OS (months) in the low-, intermediate-, and high-prognostic risk groups were 43.3 (95% CI, 40.7 to 45.8), 27.7 (95% CI, 25.8 to 31.3), and 15.4 (95% CI, 14.0 to 17.9), respectively. Compared with the low-risk prognostic group, the hazard ratios for the high- and intermediate-risk groups were 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 5.1; P < .0001) and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: This prognostic model for OS in docetaxel-naïve men with mCRPC has been validated using data from seven trials and yields similar results overall and across race, age, and different treatment classes. The prognostic risk groups are robust and can be used to identify groups of patients for enrichment designs and for stratification in randomized clinical trials.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Comprehensive Clinical Subgroup Analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries. OBJECTIVE: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Cell-free DNA Methylation as a Predictive Biomarker of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer in SWOG S1314.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, treatment is intense, and the overall benefit is small, necessitating effective biomarkers to identify patients who will benefit most. OBJECTIVE: To characterize cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation in patients receiving NAC in SWOG S1314, a prospective cooperative group trial, and to correlate the methylation signatures with pathologic response at radical cystectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: SWOG S1314 is a prospective cooperative group trial for patients with MIBC (cT2-T4aN0M0, ≥5 mm of viable tumor), with a primary objective of evaluating the coexpression extrapolation (COXEN) gene expression signature as a predictor of NAC response, defined as achieving pT0N0 or ≤pT1N0 at radical cystectomy. For the current exploratory analysis, blood samples were collected prospectively from 72 patients in S1314 before and during NAC, and plasma cfDNA methylation was measured using the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip array. INTERVENTION: No additional interventions besides plasma collection. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Differential methylation between pathologic responders (≤pT1N0) and nonresponders was analyzed, and a classifier predictive of treatment response was generated using the Random Forest machine learning algorithm. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Using prechemotherapy plasma cfDNA, we developed a methylation-based response score (mR-score) predictive of pathologic response. Plasma samples collected after the first cycle of NAC yielded mR-scores with similar predictive ability. Furthermore, we used cfDNA methylation data to calculate the circulating bladder DNA fraction, which had a modest but independent predictive ability for treatment response. In a model combining mR-score and circulating bladder DNA fraction, we correctly predicted pathologic response in 79% of patients based on their plasma collected at baseline and after one cycle of chemotherapy. Limitations of this study included a limited sample size and relatively low circulating bladder DNA levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the proof of concept that cfDNA methylation can be used to generate classifiers of NAC response in bladder cancer patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this exploratory analysis of S1314, we demonstrated that cell-free DNA methylation can be profiled to generate biomarker signatures associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. With validation in additional cohorts, this minimally invasive approach may be used to predict chemotherapy response in locally advanced bladder cancer and perhaps also in metastatic disease.

Combination Treatment with Sipuleucel-T and Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: STAMP and STRIDE Trials.

PURPOSE: We present long-term outcomes from 2 randomized studies [STAMP (with abiraterone, NCT01487863) and STRIDE (with enzalutamide, NCT01981122)] that were performed to study the impact of sequential or concurrent administration of androgen receptor-targeting agents (ARTAs) on sipuleucel-T immune response and overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sipuleucel-T was administered per current prescribing information. Results from STRIDE are presented together with updated STAMP results. Survival status of patients was updated using demographic information to query the National Death Index (NDI). Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to analyze survival. RESULTS: Updated data reduced patient censoring in each study compared with the original analyses; the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS are now estimable. Updated median OS (95% CI) is 33.3 (24.1-40.7) months for STAMP and 32.5 (26.0-45.1) months for STRIDE. There was no notable impact on median OS [HR, 0.727 (0.458-1.155); P = 0.177, reference = STRIDE]. OS with sequential administration was similar to concurrent administration [NDI update: HR, 0.963 (0.639-1.453); P = 0.845, reference = concurrent arm]. Sipuleucel-T potency, measured as antigen-presenting cell (APC) activation, was higher in subsequent infusions compared with the first infusion. Humoral responses (IgG + IgM antibody titers) to PA2024 and prostatic acid phosphatase were significantly elevated versus baseline. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Median OS was consistent regardless of whether the agents were administered sequentially or concurrently, including after NDI update. Results suggest that sipuleucel-T induces an immunologic prime-boost effect after initial sipuleucel-T exposure, even when combined with ARTAs.

First-in-human, phase 1 study of PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (VBIR), in non-metastatic hormone-sensitive biochemical recurrence and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study evaluated PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (PrCa VBIR), in two clinical states of prostate cancer (PC), metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: For dose escalation, patients with mCRPC received intramuscular PrCa VBIR (adenovirus vector and plasmid DNA expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)) with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, tremelimumab 40 or 80 mg with or without sasanlimab 130 or 300 mg, both subcutaneous). For dose expansion, patients with mCRPC received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg and sasanlimab 300 mg; patients with BCR received PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg (Cohort 1B-BCR) or tremelimumab 80 mg plus sasanlimab 130 mg (Cohort 5B-BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated in dose escalation (mCRPC=38) and expansion (BCR=35, mCRPC=18). Overall, treatment-related and immune-related adverse events occurred in 64 (70.3%) and 39 (42.9%) patients, with fatigue (40.7%), influenza-like illness (30.8%), diarrhea (23.1%), and immune-related thyroid dysfunction (19.8%) and rash (15.4%), as the most common. In patients with mCRPC, the objective response rate (ORR, 95% CI) was 5.6% (1.2% to 15.4%) and the median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 5.6 (3.5 to not estimable) months for all; the ORR was 16.7% (3.6% to 41.4%) and 6-month rPFS rate was 45.5% (24.9% to 64.1%) for those who received RP2D with measurable disease (n=18). 7.4% of patients with mCRPC achieved a ≥50% decline in baseline PSA (PSA-50), with a median duration of 4.6 (1.2-45.2) months. In patients with BCR, 9 (25.7%) achieved PSA-50; the median duration of PSA response was 3.9 (1.9-4.2) and 10.1 (6.9-28.8) months for Cohorts 5B-BCR and 1B-BCR. Overall, antigen specific T-cell response was 88.0% to PSMA, 84.0% to PSA, and 80.0% to PSCA. CONCLUSIONS: PrCa VBIR overall demonstrated safety signals similar to other ICI combination trials; significant side effects were seen in some patients with BCR. It stimulated antigen-specific immunity across all cohorts and resulted in modest antitumor activity in patients with BCR without using ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616185.

FORT-1: Phase II/III Study of Rogaratinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Selected Based on FGFR1/3 mRNA Expression.

PURPOSE: Rogaratinib, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR1-4) inhibitor, showed promising phase I efficacy and safety in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) with FGFR1-3 mRNA overexpression. We assessed rogaratinib efficacy and safety versus chemotherapy in patients with FGFR mRNA-positive advanced/metastatic UC previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. METHODS: FORT-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03410693) was a phase II/III, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with FGFR1/3 mRNA-positive locally advanced or metastatic UC with ≥ 1 prior platinum-containing regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) to rogaratinib (800 mg orally twice daily, 3-week cycles; n = 87) or chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 88). The primary end point was overall survival, with objective response rate (ORR) analysis planned following phase II accrual. Because of comparable efficacy between treatments, enrollment was stopped before progression to phase III; a full interim analysis of phase II was completed. RESULTS: ORRs were 20.7% (rogaratinib, 18/87; 95% CI, 12.7 to 30.7) and 19.3% (chemotherapy, 17/88; 95% CI, 11.7 to 29.1). Median overall survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not estimable) and 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.8 to not estimable; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.72; P = .67). Grade 3/4 events occurred in 37 (43.0%)/4 (4.7%) patients and 32 (39.0%)/15 (18.3%), respectively. No rogaratinib-related deaths occurred. Exploratory analysis of patients with FGFR3 DNA alterations showed ORRs of 52.4% (11/21; 95% CI, 29.8 to 74.3) for rogaratinib and 26.7% (4/15; 95% CI, 7.8 to 55.1) for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, these are the first data to compare FGFR-directed therapy with chemotherapy in patients with FGFR-altered UC, showing comparable efficacy and manageable safety. Exploratory testing suggested FGFR3 DNA alterations in association with FGFR1/3 mRNA overexpression may be better predictors of rogaratinib response.

Randomized Trial of Olaparib With or Without Cediranib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Results From National Cancer Institute 9984.

PURPOSE: Cediranib, a pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and increases sensitivity to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in preclinical models. We investigated whether cediranib combined with olaparib improves the clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to arm A: cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily or arm B: olaparib 300 mg twice daily alone. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intention-to-treat patients. The secondary end points were rPFS in patients with HRR-deficient and HRR-proficient mCRPC. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat set of 90 patients, median rPFS was 8.5 (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.0) and 4.0 (95% CI, 3.2 to 8.5) months in arms A and B, respectively. Cediranib/olaparib significantly improved rPFS versus olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.617; 95% CI, 0.392 to 0.969; P = .0359). Descriptive analyses showed a median rPFS of 10.6 (95% CI, 5.9 to not assessed [NA]) and 3.8 (95% CI, 2.33 to NA) months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.272 to 1.504) among patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC, and 13.8 (95% CI, 3.3 to NA) and 11.3 (95% CI, 3.8 to NA) months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.321 to 2.988) among patients with BRCA2-mutated mCRPC in arms A and B, respectively. The incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events was 61% and 18% in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cediranib combined with olaparib improved rPFS compared with olaparib alone in men with mCRPC. This combination was associated with an increased incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events. BRCA2-mutated subgroups treated with olaparib with or without cediranib were associated with a numerically longer median rPFS.

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).

Effect of Androgen-Androgen Receptor Directed Therapy on COVID-19 Outcome in Prostate Cancer Patients.

TMPRSS2 is utilized by SARS-CoV-2 for cellular entry. Androgen-Androgen receptor directed therapy (A/ARDT) downregulates expression of TMPRSS2. We hypothesized A/ARDT might protect prostate cancer (PCa) patients from poor COVID-19 outcome. A retrospective analysis of PCa patients with COVID-19 infection was performed. 146 PCa cases were identified, 17% were on A/ARDT. Hospitalization rates were same 52% (OR = 0.99, 0.41-2.24). Mean hospitalization was 9.2 (Range: 1-25) and 14.9 (Range: 2-47) days in A/ARDT and non-A/ARDT groups, respectively. While definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding outcome differences between groups due to lack of statistical significance, these data generate hypothesis that A/ARDT might shorten hospitalization stay.