Utilization of systemic treatment for metastatic bladder cancer in everyday practice: Results of a nation-wide population-based cohort study

Treatment Patterns and Attrition With Lines of Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in the US

Importance

The treatment paradigm for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has undergone substantial transformation due to the introduction of effective, novel therapeutic agents. However, outcomes remain poor, and little is known about current treatment approaches and attrition rates for patients with aUC.

Objectives

To delineate evolving treatment patterns and attrition rates in patients with aUC using a US-based patient-level sample.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the nationwide deidentified electronic health record database Flatiron Health, originating from approximately 280 oncology clinics across the US. Patients included in the analysis received treatment for metastatic or local aUC at a participating site from January 1, 2011, to January 31, 2023. Patients receiving treatment for 2 or more different types of cancer or participating in clinical trials were excluded from the analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Frequencies and percentages were used to summarize the (1) treatment received in each line (cisplatin-based regimens, carboplatin-based regimens, programmed cell death 1 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-1/PD-L1] inhibitors, single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib, sacituzumab govitecan, or others) and (2) attrition of patients with each line of therapy, defined as the percentage of patients not progressing to the next line.

Results

Of the 12 157 patients within the dataset, 7260 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis (5364 [73.9%] men; median age at the start of first-line treatment, 73 [IQR, 66-80] years). All patients commenced first-line treatment; of these, only 2714 (37.4%) progressed to receive second-line treatment, and 857 (11.8%) advanced to third-line treatment. The primary regimens used as first-line treatment contained carboplatin (2241 [30.9%]), followed by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (2174 [29.9%]). The PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors emerged as the predominant choice in the second- and third-line (1412 of 2714 [52.0%] and 258 of 857 [30.1%], respectively) treatments. From 2019 onward, novel therapeutic agents were increasingly used in second- and third-line treatments, including enfortumab vedotin (219 of 2714 [8.1%] and 159 of 857 [18.6%], respectively), erdafitinib (39 of 2714 [1.4%] and 28 of 857 [3.3%], respectively), and sacituzumab govitecan (14 of 2714 [0.5%] and 34 of 857 [4.0%], respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that approximately two-thirds of patients with aUC did not receive second-line treatment. Most first-line treatments do not include cisplatin-based regimens and instead incorporate carboplatin- or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based therapies. These data warrant the provision of more effective and tolerable first-line treatments for patients with aUC.

Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists' perspective

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC.

Treatment patterns in metastatic bladder cancer in Japan: results of the CancerMPact® survey 2020

Aim: To assess physician-reported treatment of metastatic bladder cancer in Japan. Methods: 76 physicians completed the CancerMPact® survey in July 2020, considering patients treated within 6 months. Results: Physicians treated a mean of 38.1 patients per month. Of cisplatin-eligible and -ineligible patients, 97.6 and 89.3%, respectively, received first-line platinum-based therapy, most commonly cisplatin plus gemcitabine (72.9%) and carboplatin plus gemcitabine (59.7%). 1.6 and 5.6% received first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, respectively. 48.4 and 45.0%, respectively, progressed and received second-line therapy, most commonly with pembrolizumab (61.7%). Conclusion: In 2020, most patients with metastatic bladder cancer in Japan received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, >50% received no subsequent treatment, highlighting the need for new treatment regimens to improve outcomes and maximize first-line treatment benefits.

Nationwide Study of Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Hungary

INTRODUCTION

Data describing real-world treatment patterns in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in Central-Eastern Europe are scarce, and data from Hungary have not been published. This retrospective, nationwide, real-world study investigated patient characteristics, treatment patterns, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes in patients with mUC in Hungary.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with mUC from January 2016 through June 2021 were identified using the National Health Insurance Fund Administration database. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In total, 2523 patients with mUC were identified. Median follow-up was 7.1 months. Overall, 50% of patients received an identified systemic anticancer treatment; within this subgroup, first-line treatment was platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) in 86%, non-PBC in 8%, and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in 6%. The proportion of patients receiving treatment increased from 41% in 2016 to 59% in 2020, driven by increased use of first-line PBC or first-line ICI treatment. Comorbidities were more common in patients receiving first-line ICI treatment vs PBC or non-PBC and in patients receiving carboplatin + gemcitabine vs cisplatin + gemcitabine. Overall, only 24% received a second-line treatment. Unadjusted median OS from the start of first-line treatment in the PBC, non-PBC, and ICI subgroups was 12.8, 7.5, and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS from date of diagnosis in untreated patients was 7.8 months. OS comparisons adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics between subgroups could not be performed.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess treatment patterns in patients with mUC in clinical practice in Hungary, using the national health insurance database. Rates of first- and second-line treatment were consistent with those observed in other countries. Avelumab first-line maintenance treatment became available for reimbursement in Hungary in late 2022, after the study period. Given the evolving landscape of reimbursed treatments in Hungary, further analyses are warranted.

Initial management and survival of patients with primary metastatic bladder cancer before the immunotherapy era: a population-based study from Norway

Before immunotherapy became part of the management of metastatic bladder cancer (mBC), systemic anti-cancer treatment comprised primarily of platinum-based chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics, the initial management, overall survival (OS) and hospitalisations of patients with mBC before 2018 when immunotherapy for mBC was introduced in Norway.  Material and methods: It is a nationwide population-based study of primary mBC patients (diagnosed 2008-16). Descriptive statistics were applied and stratified for four initial management options (≤150 days after BC diagnosis): chemotherapy, major local treatment (cystectomy/pelvic radiotherapy), multimodal treatment (chemotherapy and local) and no anti-cancer treatment beyond transurethral resection of bladder tumour (untreated). Group differences were evaluated by Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test; OS was estimated with Kaplan-Meier. Results: Of the 305 patients included, 76 (25%) patients had chemotherapy, 46 (15%) patients had major local treatment, 21 (7%) patients had multimodal treatment and 162 (53%) patients were untreated.  Median OS ranged from 2.3 months (untreated) to 9.8 months (chemotherapy). Patients who received treatment had a higher rate of hospitalisation, with a median stay of three to four times that of untreated patients. Conclusion: Before immunotherapy, more than 50% of patients with primary mBC did not receive any initial anti-cancer therapy and had a poor survival. Patients treated with chemotherapy had inferior median OS compared to those treated with comparable systemic strategies in contemporary trials. Our results provide a basis for future research on treatment and survival after the introduction of immunotherapy for mBC, aiming to improve the care and outcome of patients with mBC.

Kidney and Cancer Outcomes with Standard Versus Alternative Chemotherapy Regimens for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Key Points

Many patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are deemed cisplatin-ineligible because of reduced kidney function. Options include split-dose cisplatin or carboplatin. There was no significant association between regimen type and AKI. Alternative regimens were associated with higher risk of progressive disease. There is a need to revisit cisplatin eligibility criteria and develop strategies to optimize cancer treatment for patients with CKD.

Background

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens remain the optimal first-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, many patients are deemed cisplatin-ineligible, predominantly because of reduced kidney function. Other treatment options include split-dose cisplatin, carboplatin, and non–platinum-based regimens. We compared the incidence of AKI and cancer outcomes within three chemotherapy regimens.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients with mUC who received first-line chemotherapy from 2005 to 2019. We compared standard gemcitabine–cisplatin (gem-cis) with two alternative regimens: (1 ) gem-cis split-dose regimen (split) with cisplatin divided over days 1 and 8 and (2 ) combination of gemcitabine–carboplatin or single-agent gemcitabine (gem/gem-carbo). The primary outcome was Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes–defined AKI. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and progression-free survival.

Results

We identified 183 patients (98 gem-cis, 32 split, and 53 gem/gem-carbo). Median baseline eGFR in the gem/cis group was 78 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (interquartile range, 66–91), in the split group 64 (48–77), and in the gem/gem-carbo 45 (33–57). There was no significant association between regimen type and incidence of AKI when adjusted for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, baseline eGFR, hypertension, diabetes, and visceral disease. The adjusted hazard ratios were 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 2.78; P = 0.49) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.46 to 2.07; P = 0.95) for split and gem/gem-carbo groups, respectively, versus gem-cis. Split and gem/gem-carbo regimens were associated with higher mortality and progressive disease relative to gem-cis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.33; P = 0.04) and 1.96 (95% CI, 1.31 to 2.95; P < 0.01), respectively. Median progression free survival was 8.1 (interquartile range, 4.6–14.8), 6.1 (4.1–9.3), and 4.4 (2.3–8.6) months in the gem-cis, split, and gem/gem-carbo groups.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in the incidence of AKI between the three regimens studied. However, standard gem-cis was associated with improved cancer outcomes. Novel regimens and kidney protective strategies are needed for patients with mUC with kidney disease.

Avelumab First-Line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results From the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Trial After ≥2 Years of Follow-Up

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Initial results from the phase III JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02603432) showed that avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus 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 after 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance treatment is now a standard of care for aUC. Here, we report updated data with ≥ 2 years of follow-up in all patients, including OS (primary end point), PFS, safety, and additional novel analyses. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). At data cutoff (June 4, 2021), median follow-up was 38.0 months and 39.6 months, respectively; 67 patients (19.5%) had received ≥2 years of avelumab treatment. OS remained longer with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone in all patients (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91]; 2-sided P = .0036). Investigator-assessed PFS analyses also favored avelumab. Longer-term safety was consistent with previous analyses; no new safety signals were identified with longer treatment duration. In conclusion, longer-term follow-up continues to show clinically meaningful efficacy benefits with avelumab 1L maintenance plus BSC versus BSC alone in patients with aUC. An interactive visualization of data reported in this article is available.

Clinical evidence and insights supporting the use of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the Asia-Pacific region

Until recently, international and Asia-specific guidelines for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) recommended first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy, followed by second-line (2L) anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy where possible, or 1L ICI therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients with PD-L1+ tumors. However, long-term outcomes remain poor and only a minority of patients receive 2L therapy. The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial-which assessed avelumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) as 1L maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy-is the only phase 3 trial of ICI-based treatment in the 1L setting to show significantly improved overall survival, and this treatment approach is now recommended in updated treatment guidelines. Available data from the trial suggest that efficacy and safety in patients enrolled in the Asia-Pacific region were similar to findings in the overall population. In this review, we discuss the treatment of advanced UC, with a specific focus on studies in the Asia-Pacific region, and summarize key findings supporting the use of avelumab 1L maintenance as a standard of care in this setting both in cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients and irrespective of PD-L1 status.

Treatment and Survival in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Urothelial, Ovarian, Gastric and Kidney Cancer: A Nationwide Comprehensive Evaluation

Purpose

Few studies have described real-world treatment patterns and survival before the widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to describe anti-cancer treatment including the use of programmed cell death-1 and ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) ICIs and overall survival (OS) in advanced cancer patients as a benchmarking real-world standard before widespread use of ICIs.

Patients and Methods

Using nationwide Danish medical registries, we assembled cohorts of Danish patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n=12,283), urothelial carcinoma (n=2504), epithelial ovarian cancer (n=1466), gastric adenocarcinoma (n=1457), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n=1261) diagnosed between 1/1/2013 and 31/12/2017. We describe anti-cancer treatment and OS using proportions, medians, and Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results

Between 9% (ovarian cancer) and 25% (gastric adenocarcinoma) of patients did not receive anti-cancer treatment. The remaining patients received surgery, radiation therapy, and/or medical therapy. Chemotherapy was the most frequent medical therapy in all cohorts except for RCC (tyrosine kinase inhibitors). PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs were used in 7-8% of the NSCLC and RCC cohorts-mainly as second or higher line treatments. OS was longest in patients starting treatment with surgery (eg 25.6 months [95%-confidence interval (CI)=21.9-29.4] for NSCLC and 21.4 months [95%-CI=19.8-23.5] for urothelial carcinoma) and shortest for radiation therapy (eg 3.9 months [95%-CI=3.6-4.2] for NSCLC and 12.6 months [95%-CI=9.2-17.5] for urothelial carcinoma). NSCLC patients starting with medical therapy had OS between these limits. Median OS for NSCLC patients starting treatment with PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs was 21.4 months (95%-CI=13.9-not estimable).

Conclusion

Most patients with advanced NSCLC, urothelial carcinoma, epithelial ovarian cancer, gastric adenocarcinoma and RCC had poor OS in an era where only a minority received PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs. This information on treatment patterns and survival is important as a benchmarking real-world standard before widespread use of ICIs.

Utilization of systemic therapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Lessons from real world experience

Metastatic bladder cancer has poor overall survival. Though systemic therapies have shown to improve overall survival, real-world studies have shown that more than half of the patients do not receive any systemic therapy, while only around 15-20% receive second-line therapy. Even in patients receiving systemic therapies a disproportionately higher use of carboplatin is observed in the first line despite proven superior effectiveness of cisplatin. Reasons for these observations include moderate effectiveness and relatively toxicity of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, concerns with performance status and co-morbidities in this predominantly older patient population, communications barriers, lack of social support, and access to affordable healthcare. Herein we discuss potential ways to overcome these challenges which include (1) preventing/delaying metastatic disease by maximizing the receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based therapy, and development of better tolerated and more effective neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, (2) use of avelumab maintenance therapy after 4-6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to overcome attrition of patients from first to second-line therapy, (3) advancing effective and well-tolerated systemic therapies such as enfortumab vedotin, and erdafitinib to the first-line metastatic setting or even to the localized setting, (4) further development of effective and well-tolerated therapies like sacituzumab govitecan, a novel antibody-drug conjugate and (5) improving affordability and accessibility to systemic therapy agents.