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.).

First-line Management of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: Current and Future Perspectives After the EV-302 and CheckMate-901 Studies.

The standard of care for the first-line management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma has been recently challenged, with the combination of pembrolizumab and enfortumab vedotin (P-EV) strongly arising as a practice-changing option from classical platinum-based chemotherapies. With this paradigm shift on the horizon new questions, including the most suitable second line of treatment for these patients, and the role that the molecular characterization of these tumours will have when selecting these therapies will inevitably arise. Furthermore, after the negative results of the Keynote 361 and IMvigor 130 trials, the combination of nivolumab with platinum-based chemotherapy followed by nivolumab maintenance (Nivo GC-Nivo) has also shown positive results when compared with chemotherapy alone. Translational studies at a molecular, cellular, and functional level will be key to better explain these discordant results. In this Current Perspective, we discuss the potential impact of these results in clinical practice and propose specific guidance for prospective translational research.

Aggressive prostatic adenocarcinoma with urothelial-like morphology, with frequent CK7/CK20/HMWK expression and occasional diffuse neuroendocrine features: A clinicopathologic study of 12 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Prostatic adenocarcinoma can occasionally display urothelial carcinoma morphology, which prompts immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies to determine its lineage. Typically, prostate cancer is characterized by the lack of cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20 and high molecular weight keratin (HMWK) expression, as opposed to bladder cancer. METHODS: We report a series of 12 prostatic adenocarcinoma cases with unusual urothelial-like morphology, diagnosed at two academic institutions in Toronto between 2018 and 2023, and analyzed by immunohistochemistry for prostatic, urothelial, and neuroendocrine marker expression. We collected patient age, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) status, tumour site, histomorphology, Grade group (GG) and results of genetic testing. RESULTS: The median age of the 12 patients included in this case series was 75.5 years (range 41-85). A history of prostatic cancer was noted in 7/12 (58%) patients. Five of nine (56%) patients had elevated serum PSA level at diagnosis. Six of eleven (55%) patients had prior ADT. Tumour sites were prostate (n = 6), bladder (n = 3), liver metastases (n = 2), and lung metastasis (n = 1). GGs of the primary tumours were GG3 (n = 1) and GG5 (n = 8). The observed urothelial-like morphology was diffuse in ten cases, and focal in two cases. CK7 was strong/diffuse in 8/11 tested cases, and focal weak in one case. CK20, HMWK, p63 and GATA3 were patchy/focal/weak/moderate in 3/6, 4/7, 4/8 and 2/9 cases, respectively. Ten (83%) cases were positive for at least one prostatic marker; eight (67%) cases had loss/weak staining of at least one prostatic marker. AR loss was seen in 2/7 (29%) cases. Seven of ten (70%) cases had diffuse/strong expression of at least one neuroendocrine marker. No trend was evident between prior ADT/AR status and any IHC result. Molecular analyses for DNA damage repair (DDR) genes (n = 6) demonstrated one ATM deletion (bladder). In addition, one TMPRSS2:ERG fusion (lung metastasis) was identified. CONCLUSION: This series comprises high-grade and/or metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma cases with distinctive urothelial-like morphology and frequent aberrant CK7/CK20/HMWK expression. Their histomorphology, highly suggestive of an urothelial origin, represents a diagnostic pitfall that can lead to considerable management repercussions. The fact that a high proportion of the reported cases had loss/weak expression of at least one of the tested prostatic-specific markers, and occasionally a diffuse positivity for neuroendocrine markers highlights the importance of (1) clinical history and (2) utilization of broad IHC panels to correctly diagnose such unusual prostate cancer cases.

Antibody-Drug-Conjugates (ADC): A Novel Treatment Option in Urothelial Carcinoma.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADC) are a new class of agents that have been expanding the spectrum of treatment options in metastatic urothelial carcinoma only recently. Preliminary data suggest that these compounds may have the potential even to replace current standard treatments as platinum-based chemotherapies. To this end, current and future preclinical and translational evaluation of novel treatment strategies should consider these novel compounds in addition to current standard options as well. In this context, the following article will provide an overview of this new class of agents, starting with general information on molecular structure and mode of action, clinical use of ADCs in urothelial carcinoma, and ending with considerations for designing preclinical and translational experiments implementing ADCs.

The efficacy and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A recovery period between surgery and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is common in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), which can progress after a relatively long time. Therefore, the efficacy of AC initiated within 90 days after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) was evaluated in UTUC patients at stage ≥pT2 (N0-3M0), in addition to the effect of delayed AC initiation on survival outcomes. METHODS: Clinical data for 428 UTUC patients diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma with postoperatively confirmed pathological stages, muscle-invasive or greater-stage (pT2-4) disease, any nodal status, and metastasis-free (M0) disease were retrospectively analyzed. All patients who received AC were treated within 90 days after RNU and underwent at least 4 cycles of the AC procedure. Then, patients receiving AC were divided into the "within 45 days" and "45 to 90 days" groups according to the time interval between RNU and AC initiation. Their clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated and the survival outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. Any adverse events that occurred during the AC process were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 428 patients were analyzed in the study, including 132 individuals who underwent the AC procedure with platinum in combination with gemcitabine within 90 days after RNU and 296 patients who failed to initiate AC within 90 days. The median age of all patients was 68 years (mean 67, range 28-90 years), and the median follow-up was 25 months (mean 36, range 1-129 months). There were no significant differences in age, sex, lymph node metastasis, tumor location, hydronephrosis status, hematuria status, cancer grade, or multifocality between the 2 groups. Individuals undergoing AC initiated within 90 days of RNU showed a significantly decreased mortality relative to those patients who did not receive AC. Shorter intervals between RNU and AC initiation within 45 days vs. 45-90 days did not improve patient OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) and may have increased the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The present study data supported the finding that a platinum-based combination with gemcitabine regimen initiated postoperatively significantly improved OS and CSS in patients with UTUC at stages ≥pT2 (N0-3M0). Furthermore, no survival benefit was evident in patients who started AC within 45 days after RNU compared to those who received AC within 45 to 90 days.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Long-term Survival of Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

This cohort study uses published clinical trial data to assess long-term survival of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A Phase II Trial of Guadecitabine plus Atezolizumab in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing after Initial Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: On the basis of preclinical evidence of epigenetic contribution to sensitivity and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we hypothesized that guadecitabine (hypomethylating agent) and atezolizumab [anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)] together would potentiate a clinical response in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) unresponsive to initial immune checkpoint blockade therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed a single arm phase II study (NCT03179943) with a safety run-in to identify the recommended phase II dose of the combination therapy of guadecitabine and atezolizumab. Patients with recurrent/advanced UC who had previously progressed on ICI therapy with programmed cell death protein 1 or PD-L1 targeting agents were eligible. Preplanned correlative analysis was performed to characterize peripheral immune dynamics and global DNA methylation, transcriptome, and immune infiltration dynamics of patient tumors. RESULTS: Safety run-in enrolled 6 patients and phase II enrolled 15 patients before the trial was closed for futility. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Four patients, with best response of stable disease (SD), exhibited extended tumor control (8-11 months) and survival (>14 months). Correlative analysis revealed lack of DNA demethylation in tumors after 2 cycles of treatment. Increased peripheral immune activation and immune infiltration in tumors after treatment correlated with progression-free survival and SD. Furthermore, high IL6 and IL8 levels in the patients' plasma was associated with short survival. CONCLUSIONS: No RECIST responses were observed after combination therapy in this trial. Although we could not detect the anticipated tumor-intrinsic effects of guadecitabine, the addition of hypomethylating agent to ICI therapy induced immune activation in a few patients, which associated with longer patient survival.

Patient-reported Outcomes from JAVELIN Bladder 100: Avelumab First-line Maintenance Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In JAVELIN Bladder 100, avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without disease progression with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized phase 3 trial (NCT02603432) was conducted in 700 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin. PROs were a secondary endpoint. INTERVENTION: Avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Symptom Index-18 (FBlSI-18) and EuroQol five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effect models. Time to deterioration (TTD; prespecified definition: a ≥3-point decrease from baseline in the FBlSI-18 disease-related symptoms-physical subscale for two consecutive assessments) was evaluated via Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Completion rates for scheduled on-treatment PRO assessments were >90% (overall and average per assessment). Results from descriptive analyses and mixed-effect or repeated-measures models of FBlSI-18 and EQ-5D-5L were similar between arms. TTD was also similar, both in the prespecified analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.77]) and in the post hoc analyses including off-treatment assessments and different event definitions. Limitations included the open-label design and limited numbers of evaluable patients at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of avelumab first-line maintenance to BSC in patients with aUC that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy prolonged OS, with a relatively minimal effect on quality of life. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial of people with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had benefited from first-line chemotherapy (ie, had stable disease or reduced tumor size), treatment with avelumab maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone improved survival significantly, without compromising quality of life, as reported by the patients themselves.

Bempegaldesleukin plus Nivolumab in First-line Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Results from PIVOT-02.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent changes in the treatment landscape, there remains an unmet need for effective, tolerable, chemotherapy-free treatments for patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), especially cisplatin-ineligible patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the immunostimulatory interleukin-2 cytokine prodrug bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG) plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/mUC from the phase 2 multicenter PIVOT-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, multicohort phase 1/2 study enrolled patients with previously untreated locally advanced/surgically unresectable or mUC (N = 41). INTERVENTION: Patients received BEMPEG 0.006 mg/kg plus nivolumab 360 mg intravenously every 3 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objectives were safety and the objective response rate (ORR) in patients with measurable disease at baseline and at least one postbaseline tumor response assessment (response-evaluable). Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Exploratory biomarker analyses via univariate logistic regression were performed to test the association between potential biomarkers (CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, tumor mutational burden, and IFN-γ gene expression profile) and response. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORR was 35% (13/37 evaluable patients) and the complete response rate was 19% (7/37 patients); the median duration of response was not reached. Median PFS was 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-8.7) and median OS was 23.7 mo (95% CI 15.8-not reached). Overall, 40/41 patients (98%) experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 11 patients (27%), most commonly pyrexia (4.9%; 2 patients). Exploratory biomarker analyses showed no association between biomarkers and response. Limitations include the small sample size and single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: BEMPEG plus nivolumab was well tolerated and showed antitumor activity as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced/mUC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated an immune-stimulating prodrug called bempegaldesleukin plus the antibody nivolumab as the first therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer of the urinary tract. This combination had manageable treatment-related side effects and was effective in a subset of patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02983045.

Cutaneous Metastasis from Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Urinary Bladder.

Cutaneous metastases with a prevalence of 5.3% in all malignancies are rarely observed phenomena in dermatology. Bladder cancers constitute 0.84% of cutaneous metastases; and 90% of these are transitional cell carcinomas (TCCs), the commonest bladder malignancy. However, these metastatic cutaneous lesions are notorious for mimicking many dermatological disorders and show poor prognosis. Herein, we report a 51-year male patient who presented with fibrotic or sclerodermoid type lesions on his both legs and trunk due to cutaneous metastases of bladder urothelial carcinoma. We would like to call attention to these rarely observed skin lesions to prevent delayed diagnosis; and emphasise the use of immunohistochemical staining for the determination of the primary origin of the tumour. Key Words: Cutaneous metastasis, Bladder, Urothelial carcinoma.

Infigratinib in Early-Line and Salvage Therapy for FGFR3-Altered Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the efficacy of infigratinib, a potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, across lines of therapy (LOT) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mUC and prior platinum-based chemotherapy, unless contraindicated, and activating FGFR3 mutation/fusion. Patients received infigratinib 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) in a single-arm, open-label study. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response (BOR) that included unconfirmed responses, and overall survival (OS) were also assessed. Subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes by LOT was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 13 (19.4%) received infigratinib as early-line therapy for mUC due to ineligibility to receive platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall, ORR was 25.4% (95% CI 15.5-37.5) and DCR was 64.2% (95% CI 51.5-75.5). ORR was 30.8% (95% CI 9.1-61.4) with early-line infigratinib and 24.1% (95% CI 13.5-37.6) for ≥2 LOT. DCR was 46.2% (95% CI 19.2-74.9) for early-line and 68.5% (95% CI 54.4-80.5) for ≥2 LOT. PFS and OS appeared similar in both groups. Thirteen of 59 patients with a bladder primary tumor received early-line treatment with an ORR of 30.5% (95% CI 9.1-61.4), and 46 received ≥2 LOT with an ORR of 20.3% (95% CI 9.4-33.9); BOR was 38.5% (95% CI: 13.9-68.4%) and 42.6% (95% CI: 29.2-56.8%) in the early-line and salvage settings, respectively. Eight patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma received salvage therapy (ORR, 50.0%; DCR, 100.0%). No significant differences in toxicities between LOT were observed. CONCLUSION: Infigratinib has notable activity in patients with mUC regardless of LOT. The findings support the evaluation of infigratinib across different settings in mUC.

A rare case report of transitional urothelial carcinoma metastasizing to isolated upper cervical lymph node diagnosed on cytology.

Transitional urothelial carcinoma frequently metastasizes to pelvic and retroperitoneal lymph nodes usually within 2 years of primary diagnosis but isolated metastasis to upper cervical lymph node after 5 years of primary diagnosis is extremely rare. We report here a case of a 53-year-old male who presented with Level II cervical node enlargement after 5 years of being diagnosed and treated for urothelial carcinoma. The diagnosis of cervical metastasis from urothelial carcinoma was suggested by fine-needle aspiration cytology and confirmed by immunocytochemistry.

Prognostic Role of FGFR Alterations and FGFR mRNA Expression in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Undergoing Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the disease-specific survival(DSS) after checkpoint inhibitor(CPI) therapy based on FGFR alterations and FGFR mRNA expression levels in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer(mUCa) within a multi-center cohort. METHODS: Within a cohort of 72 patients with mUCa from five academic centers in Germany FGFR alterations, as well as FGFR1-4 mRNA expression levels in tumor samples from the primary tumor or metastatic sites. Spearman rank correlations, logistic regression, as well as Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and univariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed to examine the impact of different FGFR patterns on the DSS after CPI treatment. RESULTS: FGFR3 mutations or gene fusions (gene alterations) were detected in 16.9% of all samples. Patients with or without FGFR3 gene alterations did not show different oncological outcomes undergoing CPI treatment. Low expression of FGFR2 mRNA alone, as well as the combination of either low FGFR2mRNA expression and FGFR3 gene alteration or high FGFR3mRNA expression (P = 0.027), identified a subgroup of patients with unfavorable outcomes, comprising 40% of the total cohort. This trend was also observed in univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis(FGFR3 gene alteration: Hazard ratio(HR) 5.33, 95%Confidence interval(CI)1.76-15.0, P = 0.004; FGFR3mRNA expression:HR 3.04, 95%CI 1.40-7.13, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Assessment of FGFR mRNA expression identified a high-risk subgroup of patients with mUCa. These patients showing overexpression of FGFR3 mRNA were found to have unfavorable DSS after CPI treatment. Using this approach may be suitable for identifying a patient population with poor response to CPI treatment, which may benefit from early FGFR inhibition.

Effectiveness and safety profile of pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial cancer: A retrospective single-center analysis in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The paradigm of medical treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma is dramatically changing through the introduction of pembrolizumab. AIM: We investigated the treatment effectiveness, the safety profile, and the prognostic factors of pembrolizumab in Japanese real-world clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: The medical records of 74 consecutive Japanese patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (UC), who started pembrolizumab as a second- or later-line treatment at our institution between January 2018 and March 2020, were reviewed and statistically analyzed. The median follow-up period after initiation of pembrolizumab was 8.5 (interquartile range: 3.5-15.7) months. The objective response rate was 30.2%, the median progression-free survival period was 4.9 months, and the median overall survival (OS) period was 13.3 months. Evaluation revealed that 39 (52.9%) patients experienced adverse events (AEs), among whom eight patients (10.9%) had severe AEs (grade 3 or more), including grade 5 hemophagocytic syndrome. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of liver metastasis, worse performance status (≥2), elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase, and increased C-reactive protein were predictive of shorter OS. CONCLUSION: We studied the effectiveness and safety profile of pembrolizumab therapy in Japanese UC patients. We believe that the data presented here will be useful for clinical physicians.

Efficacy and safety of rucaparib in previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma from a phase 2, open-label trial (ATLAS).

BACKGROUND: ATLAS evaluated the efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with previously treated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS: Patients with UC were enrolled independent of tumor homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status and received rucaparib 600 mg BID. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) in the intent-to-treat and HRD-positive (loss of genome-wide heterozygosity ≥10%) populations. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was defined post-hoc as the proportion of patients with a confirmed complete or partial response (PR), or stable disease lasting ≥16 weeks. RESULTS: Of 97 enrolled patients, 20 (20.6%) were HRD-positive, 30 (30.9%) HRD-negative, and 47 (48.5%) HRD-indeterminate. Among 95 evaluable patients, there were no confirmed responses. However, reductions in the sum of target lesions were observed, including 6 (6.3%) patients with unconfirmed PR. DCR was 11.6%; median PFS was 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.6-1.9). No relationship was observed between HRD status and efficacy endpoints. Median treatment duration was 1.8 months (range, 0.1-10.1). Most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were asthenia/fatigue (57.7%), nausea (42.3%), and anemia (36.1%). Of 64 patients with data from tumor tissue samples, 10 (15.6%) had a deleterious alteration in a DNA damage repair pathway gene, including four with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib did not show significant activity in unselected patients with advanced UC regardless of HRD status. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in patients with ovarian or prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03397394). Date of registration: 12 January 2018. This trial was registered in EudraCT (2017-004166-10).