Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma

The role of cisplatin in modulating the tumor immune microenvironment and its combination therapy strategies: a new approach to enhance anti-tumor efficacy

Cisplatin is a platinum-based drug that is frequently used to treat multiple tumors. The anti-tumor effect of cisplatin is closely related to the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME), which includes several immune cell types, such as the tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), dendritic cells (DCs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), regulatory T cells (Tregs), and natural killer (NK) cells. The interaction between these immune cells can promote tumor survival and chemoresistance, and decrease the efficacy of cisplatin monotherapy. Therefore, various combination treatment strategies have been devised to enhance patient responsiveness to cisplatin therapy. Cisplatin can augment anti-tumor immune responses in combination with immune checkpoint blockers (such as PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA4 inhibitors), lipid metabolism disruptors (like FASN inhibitors and SCD inhibitors) and nanoparticles (NPs), resulting in better outcomes. Exploring the interaction between cisplatin and the TIME will help identify potential therapeutic targets for improving the treatment outcomes in cancer patients.

Significance of Body Surface Area Correction for Cisplatin Eligibility Based on Renal Function of Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Creatinine clearance (CCr) ≥60 mL/min without body surface area (BSA) correction is commonly applied to determine the cisplatin (CDDP) eligibility of patients with bladder cancer. However, since CDDP dosages are calculated according to BSA, there is concern that applying renal function without BSA correction may underestimate CDDP eligibility, especially of patients with low BSA. The purpose of this study was to determine whether BSA correction for renal function affects the decision of CDDP eligibility and oncological outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of 294 patients who received platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and underwent radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with BSA below and above the median BSA value (1.70 m2) were divided into low-BSA and high-BSA groups. Patients who received ≥20% dose reduction of CDDP or replacement by carboplatin at the first NAC cycle were categorized as "inadequate-CDDP" recipients. "CDDP-eligibility underestimation" was defined as CCr with BSA correction >60 mL/min/1.73 m2 while CCr without BSA correction <60 mL/min. The association of BSA with inadequate-CDDP was evaluated using multivariate analysis. Additionally, differences in clinical outcomes, namely cancer-specific survival (CSS) and objective response rate (ORR) to NAC, between the low- and high-BSA groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

CDDP-eligibility underestimation was more frequent in the low-BSA group than in the high-BSA group (17% vs. 0%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that low-BSA was independently associated with the risk of inadequate CDDP (odds ratio, 2.07; P = .012). CSS from initiation of NAC was significantly shorter in the low-BSA group than in the high-BSA group (hazard ratio, 2.24; P = .002). The ORR for NAC was also significantly lower in the low-BSA group (40.8% vs. 57.1%; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

When determining CDDP eligibility for renal function in patients with low BSA, renal function values corrected by standard BSA should be applied to prevent inappropriate dosing reductions.

Economic evaluation of Erdafitinib as a second-line treatment for advanced metastatic urothelial carcinoma: real-world data from the USA and prospective analysis from China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is challenging to treat, with 37% of patients failing first-line therapy. Effective second-line treatments, like Erdafitinib, are crucial. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Erdafitinib as a second-line treatment for mUC from US and Chinese payer perspectives.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to project costs, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over lifetime. Data were collected from December 2023 to December 2024 for up-to-date estimates and were obtained from literature, health databases, and clinical trials.. The model was run to project long-term outcomes for both the United States and China.

RESULTS

In the United States, Erdafitinib provides an additional 0.467 QALYs at a cost of $238,294.2 per QALY, which exceeds the $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. For China, when the cost of Erdafitinib is below $6.9 or $14 per milligram, there is a 90% probability that its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be below $38,223 or $84,966 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of U.S. payers, Erdafitinib as a second-line treatment for mUC is not cost-effective. From the perspective of China, the cost-effectiveness of Erdafitinib is highly sensitive to its price, which could provide a reference for healthcare reimbursement negotiations.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2025 Guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This publication represents a summary of the updated 2025 European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (MMIBC). The aim is to provide practical recommendations on the clinical management of MMIBC with a focus on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

METHODS

For the 2025 guidelines, new and relevant evidence was identified, collated, and appraised via a structured assessment of the literature. Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries. Recommendations within the guidelines were developed by the panel to prioritise clinically important care decisions. The strength of each recommendation was determined according to a balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies, the quality of the evidence (including the certainty of estimates), and the nature and variability of patient values and preferences.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The key recommendations emphasise the importance of thorough diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for patients with MMIBC. The guidelines stress the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of MMIBC patients and the importance of shared decision-making with patients. The key changes in the 2025 muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) guidelines include the following: a new recommendation for the use of susceptible FGFR3 alterations to select patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma for treatment with erdafitinib; significant adaption and update of the recommendations for pre- and postoperative radiotherapy and sexual organ-preserving techniques in women; new recommendation related to radical cystectomy and extent of lymph node dissection based on the results of the SWOG trial; recommendation related to hospital volume; new recommendations for salvage cystectomy after trimodality therapy and for the management of all patients who are candidates for trimodality bladder-preserving treatment in a multidisciplinary team setting using a shared decision-making process; significant adaption and update to the recommendation for adjuvant nivolumab in selected patients with pT3/4 and/or pN+ disease not eligible for, or who declined, adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy; and addition of a new recommendation for metastatic disease regarding the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan in case of HER2 overexpression; in addition, removal of the recommendations on sacituzumab govitecan as the manufacturer has withdrawn the US Food and Drug Administration approval for this product; update of the follow-up of MIBC; and full update of the management algorithms of MIBC.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This overview of the 2025 EAU guidelines offers valuable insights into risk factors, diagnosis, classification, treatment, and follow-up of MIBC patients and is designed for effective integration into clinical practice.

Cabozantinib plus Pembrolizumab as First-line Therapy for Cisplatin-ineligible Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: The PemCab Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab monotherapy is approved for patients with platinum-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Cabozantinib is a multireceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against MET and VEGFR2 and is approved as monotherapy or in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor for other malignancies. The objective was to determine the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab + cabozantinib as first-line treatment for patients with mUC.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk + cabozantinib 40 mg daily. Key inclusion criteria were locally advanced UC or mUC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, ineligible for or refused cisplatin, and no prior PD-1/L1 inhibitor. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). According to the statistical plan, in a cohort of 35 evaluable participants, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) would extend no more than 26% from the ORR observed, and in a scenario with ≥17 objective responses, the CI would exclude 32%.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Responses were observed in 16 of 35 evaluable patients, with an ORR of 46% (95% CI 31-62%). Median PFS and OS were 8 mo (95% CI 5-13) and 17 mo (95% CI 13-not reached), respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) were diarrhea (58%), fatigue (56%), pruritus (39%), nausea (36%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (36%), and a decrease in appetite (33%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab + cabozantinib demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile and promising efficacy as a first-line therapy combination for cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC.

An evaluation of nivolumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

For decades, first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer has been platinum-based chemotherapy. However, many patients do not respond to platinum-based chemotherapy alone, and the vast majority do not have durable responses. While immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated benefit in this setting, initial trials of concurrent chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade did not demonstrate improvements in overall survival.

AREAS COVERED

The recent CheckMate 901 trial compared gemcitabine, cisplatin, plus nivolumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer. This was the first trial to demonstrate significant benefit in the combined chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade arm in advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer, most significantly showing an improvement in the primary outcomes of progression-free survival and overall survival, and the exploratory outcomes of objective response rate, complete response rate, and duration of complete response.

EXPERT OPINION

The combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin, plus nivolumab represents a new first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial cancer. This article details the clinical benefit observed and how this establishes proof-of-concept for prior hypotheses related to the importance of the specific chemotherapy regimen combined with immune checkpoint blockade, revolving around immunomodulatory mechanisms of action of cisplatin, and synergy of these mechanisms with immunotherapy.

The correlation between discrepancies in clinical and pathological T stages and overall survival in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: Analysis of the hospital-based cancer registry data in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Our study assessed the correlation between discrepancies in clinical and pathological T stages and overall survival (OS) in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), including renal pelvis (UCP) and ureter (UCU) carcinoma, treated with radical surgery.

METHODS

We utilized data from the Japanese Hospital-Based Cancer Registry (HBCR) to identify UTUC cases (n = 2376), consisting of UCP cases (n = 1196) and UCU cases (n = 1180), diagnosed with cTa-3N0M0 between 2012 and 2013. All cases were histologically confirmed and treated solely with radical surgery, excluding any chemotherapy or radiotherapy. We investigated the correlation between stage classification discrepancies and OS.

RESULTS

Among UCP and UCU patients, cT2N0M0 had the highest discrepancy rates between clinical and pathological stages (68% and 51%), while cT3N0M0 had the lowest (21% and 20%). Among UCP and UCU patients with cTa/is/1N0M0, those with up-staging showed significantly worse OS compared to same-staging (HR 1.7 and 2.5, p = 0.001 and <0.001, respectively). In UCU patients with cT2N0M0, the 5-year OS rates were 41.9% for up-staging, 63.7% for same-staging, and 76.4% for down-staging, with significantly worse survival in the up-staged group. Among UCP and UCU patients with cT3N0M0, the 5-year OS rates were 29.3% and 7.7% for those with up-staging, 53.7% and 30.6% for those with same staging, and 79.6% and 65.4% for those with down-staging.

CONCLUSION

Using a large real-world cohort, we found stage discrepancies to be a significant independent prognostic factor in non-metastatic UTUC patients. Treatment should be carefully selected, considering T-staging discrepancies and prognosis.

Association between antibiotics and treatment efficacy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic therapy (ABT)-induced dysbiosis may affect the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy. We investigated the association between ABT and real-world overall survival (rwOS) and progression-free survival (rwPFS) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receiving ICI or cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CIS).

METHODS

Three thousand, one hundred seventy-nine patients were included from a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database. Three-month landmark Kaplan-Meier methods and log-rank tests were used to estimate rwOS/PFS between treatment modalities based on ABT groups (stratified by exposure, timing, excretion mode, and administration route). Cox proportional models with time-varying coefficients were used to investigate the associations between ABT, treatment modality, and rwOS/PFS.

RESULTS

A total of 402 (27.1%) ICI and 655 (38.6%) CIS patients received ABT (p < 0.001). ICI receipt (OR 0.65, p < 0.001) and advanced age (OR 0.98, p < 0.001) were associated with lower ABT use. ICI exclusive findings included a negative correlation with rwOS in patients who received post-treatment initiated (ICI median: pre-13.2 vs post-7.9 vs none-13.3 months; p = 0.009), oral (median oral-9.6 vs none-13.3 months, p = 0.03), and renally cleared (median renal-9.9 vs none-13.3 months, p = 0.04) ABT. ABT's effect was negatively associated with rwOS in ICI patients within first 6 months (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.107-1.74, p = 0.01) but not thereafter (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a potential ICI-specific negative correlation between ABT and rwOS in patients with mUC, specifically those exposed to ABT pills and receipt before treatment initiation. These results emphasize the importance of antibiotic stewardship and continued investigation of the role of gut microbiome in mUC treatment efficacy.

Split-Dose Cisplatin Use, Eligibility Criteria, and Drivers for Treatment Choice in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Results of a Large International Physician Survey

BACKGROUND

For many decades, gemcitabine + cisplatin has been a preferred and accepted treatment option for patients with urothelial cancer (UC). In patients ineligible for standard-dose cisplatin, split-dose cisplatin is a promising alternative. This study aimed to provide insights into the use of split-dose cisplatin and factors influencing treatment choice.

METHODS

Between January and March 2024, an international cross-sectional survey was carried out, which involved oncologists and urologists treating patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC (la/mUC) in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Demographics, practice patterns, and clinical parameters influencing treatment choice were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 791 respondents, most were male (73%), the mean age was 43 years, and the mean time spent in clinical practice was 13 years. In total, 85% reported using split-dose cisplatin in UC, ranging from 97% in Canada to 67% in Brazil. The preferred schedule in la/mUC was gemcitabine + cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles (57%). Most respondents (64%) were comfortable prescribing split-dose cisplatin to otherwise fit patients with a creatinine clearance ≥40 mL/min. Standard- and split-dose cisplatin were preferred regimens for otherwise fit patients with creatinine clearance of 45-60 mL/min.

CONCLUSIONS

This large international survey demonstrates the extensive use of split-dose cisplatin in patients with la/mUC. Responses indicate that split-dose cisplatin is administered to patients in clinical practice with a wider range of creatinine clearance, performance status, and comorbidities than suggested for standard-dose cisplatin. Results highlight the need to evaluate split-dose cisplatin prospectively and establish consensus guidelines for its use, especially in patients unfit for standard-dose cisplatin.

Neoadjuvant Accelerated Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Cancer: Large, Single-Center Analysis of Consecutive Patients' Data

Background/Objectives: Bladder cancer is a significant clinical problem with approximately 500,000 new cases worldwide annually. In approximately 25% of cases, disease is diagnosed at a stage of invasion of the muscle layer of the bladder. The current standard approach in this disease is preoperative chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. Dose-dense MVAC (ddMVAC), a two-day chemotherapy regimen, is the reference treatment protocol in this setting. The presented study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of accelerated MVAC (aMVAC) chemotherapy-a one-day regimen given before the resection of the bladder due to muscle-invasive disease. Methods: A retrospective analysis included 119 consecutive patients diagnosed with urothelial muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who underwent preoperative chemotherapy with the aMVAC regimen. The planned treatment included 4-6 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy. The analysis of the degree of histopathological response to treatment was based on the three-grade TRG (tumor regression grade) classification. Results: A complete pathological response (TRG1) was observed in 44 patients (36.7%), and a major pathologic response ( Collapse

Key Words

• aMVAC
• bladder cancer
• neoadjuvant chemotherapy
• urothelial cancer

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Łukasz Kwinta Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; (Ł.K.) Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Kamil Konopka Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; (Ł.K.) Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Krzysztof Okoń Pathomorphology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-531 Krakow, Poland Department of Pathomorphology, University Hospital in Krakow, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
Mateusz Łobacz Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Piotr Chłosta Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Krakow, Poland Clinical Department of Urology and Oncological Urology, University Hospital in Krakow, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
Przemysław Dudek Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Krakow, Poland Clinical Department of Urology and Oncological Urology, University Hospital in Krakow, 30-688 Kraków, Poland
Anna Buda-Nowak Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; (Ł.K.) Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Paweł Potocki Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; (Ł.K.) Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
Piotr J. Wysocki Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; (Ł.K.) Clinical Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Krakow, 31-501 Kraków, Poland

Collapse

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma deemed potentially ineligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy: Post hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-052 and LEAP-011

BACKGROUND

First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care for platinum-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). No global standardized definition of platinum ineligibility exists. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with UC who met various criteria for platinum ineligibility.

METHODS

Patients from KEYNOTE-052 and LEAP-011 deemed potentially platinum ineligible were pooled for this post hoc exploratory analysis as follows: group 1: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2; group 2: ECOG PS 2 and age ≥80 years, renal dysfunction, or visceral disease; and group 3: any two other factors regardless of ECOG PS. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. End points included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by blinded independent central review, overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 612 patients treated with pembrolizumab from KEYNOTE-052 (n = 370) and LEAP-011 (n = 242) were included; the median (range) follow-up was 56.3 months (51.2-65.3 months) and 12.8 months (0.2-25.1 months), respectively. For group 1, ORR was 26.2%, median PFS was 2.7 months, and median OS was 10.1 months. For group 2, ORR ranged from 23.5% to 33.3%, median PFS ranged from 2.1 to 4.4 months, and median OS ranged from 9.1 to 10.1 months. For group 3, ORR ranged from 25.7% to 27.9%, median PFS ranged from 2.1 to 2.8 months, and median OS ranged from 9.0 to 10.6 months. Treatment-related adverse event rates were consistent across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontline pembrolizumab has consistent antitumor activity and safety in patients with advanced UC categorized as potentially ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the variable definitions of platinum ineligibility used.

Reevaluating the role of platinum-based chemotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard first-line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) for decades, based on the proven efficacy and established safety profiles of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimens. With the emergence of novel regimens, it is important to reevaluate and contextualize the role of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab 1L maintenance in patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy was established as a standard 1L regimen based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase III trial. More recently, the EV-302 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, and the Checkmate 901 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. These 2 regimens have now been included as standard 1L options in treatment guidelines for advanced UC. EV + pembrolizumab is now the preferred 1L treatment, and in locations where EV + pembrolizumab is not available or individual patients are not considered suitable, recommended options are platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance or nivolumab + cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for advanced UC recommended in guidelines, practical considerations with platinum-based chemotherapy, the role of avelumab 1L maintenance, recent phase III trials of EV + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine, safety profiles of recommended 1L treatments, and second-line treatment options.

Characterizing ADRs of Enfortumab vedotin and Erdafitinib in bladder cancer treatment: a descriptive analysis from WHO-VigiAccess

Introduction

Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and Erdafitinib are effective therapeutic drugs for bladder cancer patients following post-chemotherapy and immunotherapy. This study assessed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from both drugs, comparing their safety profiles to guide clinical use.

Methods

A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted on ADR reports for EV and Erdafitinib from the World Health Organization (WHO)-VigiAccess database. Data on patient demographics, system organ classes (SOCs), global patient regions, symptoms, and ADRs frequencies were analyzed and compared.

Results

As of 2024, 3,438 ADR reports were identified (2,257 for EV and 1,181 for Erdafitinib). The number of adverse reaction reports for EV is significantly higher than that for Erdafitinib. Among them, the SOC with the most adverse signals is gastrointestinal disorders, with the top five reports being nausea, gastrointestinal disorders, dry mouth, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. The top five reported adverse events (AEs) for EV are as follows: skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (20.70%), general disorders and administration site conditions (14.23%), nervous system disorders (11.12%), gastrointestinal disorders (7.78%), and metabolism and nutrition disorders (6.47%). In contrast, the top five AEs for Erdafitinib are: general disorders and administration site conditions (25.36%), skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (10.94%), gastrointestinal disorders (10.19%), eye disorders (9.21%), and injury poisoning and procedural complications (7.31%).

Conclusion

Our study identified and compared potential and novel ADRs between EV and Erdafitinib, providing key insights into their safety profiles and highlighting the need for personalized treatment strategies based on individual patient risk factors.

Split-Dose Cisplatin in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a highly active and commonly used regimen in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). With GC, cisplatin is dosed at 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-week cycle; however, for many patients, impaired renal or cardiac function, neuropathy, or poor performance status (PS) can preclude the use of cisplatin. A promising alternative is split-dose GC, in which the cisplatin dose is divided over 2 days.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) to better understand treatment patterns and comparative effectiveness and safety of split-dose GC vs gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCa), GC, and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC).

RESULTS

Among 120 identified studies, 16 studies representing 1,767 patients included split-dose GC. Common reasons for choosing split-dose GC were impaired renal function, age > 70 years, comorbidities, and physician preference. Split-dose GC had objective response rates (ORRs) of 39%-80%, median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.5-9.9 months, and median overall survival (OS) of 8.5-18.1 months. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 5%-38%. In the NMA, ORR with split-dose GC was significantly higher than with GCa. PFS and OS for split-dose GC were similar to that observed with the other regimens (GCa, GC, and MVAC).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first SLR and NMA of split-dose GC in la/mUC. Despite heterogeneity in the limited studies included, split-dose GC demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety profile to those seen with other regimens. Split-dose GC thus has the potential to extend the la/mUC population eligible to receive cisplatin-based regimens and warrants further prospective study.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)

OBJECTIVE

To update the CCAFU recommendations for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

METHODS

A systematic review (Medline) of the literature from 2022 to 2024 was carried out, taking into account the elements of the diagnosis, the treatment options and the monitoring of NMIBC and MIBC, evaluating the references with their level of evidence.

RESULTS

MIBC is diagosed after the must complete tumor resection possible . CT-Urography coupled with chest CT scans are used to assess the extent of MIBC. Multiparametric pelvic MRI may be an alternative imaging approach. Cystectomy combined with standard lymph node dissection is the standard treatment for nonmetastatic MIBC. Neoadjuvant cispaltine-based chemotherapy should be used in patients in good general health with satisfactory renal function. Enterocystoplasty is proposed for men and women in the absence of contraindications and when urethral recutting is negative on extemporaneous examination; otherwise, transileal cutaneous ureterostomy is the recommended method of urinary diversion. All patients should be included in an improved recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. For metastatic MIBC, first-line treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab is recommended. Second-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Updating the ccAFU recommendations should improve patient management and enhance the diagnosis and treatment of MIBC.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer (UTUC)

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to propose an update of the French guidelines from the national committee ccAFU on upper tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC).

METHODS

A systematic Medline search for epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and follow-up of UTUC was performed between 2022 and 2024 to evaluate available references and their levels of evidence.

RESULTS

UTUC is a rare malignancy with specific risk factors, including exposure to aristolochic acid and Lynch syndrome. Its diagnosis is based on the use of computed tomography urography and ureterorenoscopy with biopsies. A prognostic classification has been proposed to discriminate low- and high-risk lesions mainly on the basis of tumour grade (low/high) and imaging aspects (non-invasive/invasive). Tumour size (<2/≥2cm), focality (uni-/multifocal), and hydronephrosis (absent/present) are more relative risk factors. The standard of care for low-risk patients is currently conservative treatment involving ureterorenoscopy laser ablation, whereas radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is advised for those with high-risk disease. Adjuvant treatments after RNU include intravesical instillation of chemotherapy to decrease the risk of bladder recurrence and delivery of platinum-based chemotherapy in pT2-T4 and/or pN+ patients. First-line treatment for metastatic UTUC is based on the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. For unfit patients, platinum-based chemotherapy plus nivolumab followed by maintenance nivolumab or platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance avelumab in those with at least stable disease can be proposed. The surveillance regimen and schedule depend on the disease stage.

CONCLUSION

These updated guidelines will contribute to improving the management of patients diagnosed with UTUC.

Novel therapeutic regimens in previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (muC) has historically had few effective therapeutic options. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), were introduced as therapeutic options for cisplatin-ineligible patients, however, direct head-to-head trials comparing these treatments are lacking. To address this gap, this study employs a Bayesian framework to indirectly compare the performance of ICIs as first-line agents for muC. A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating different ICI for mUC. Data was inputted into Review Manager 5.4 for pairwise meta-analysis. Data was then used to build a network in R Studio. These networks were used to model 200,000 Markov Chains via MonteCarlo sampling. The results are expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Six studies with 5,449 patients were included, 3,255 received ICI monotherapy or combination. Moreover, a total of 3,006 had PD-L1 positive tumors and 2,362 were PD-L1 negative. Median overall survival (OS) ranged from 12.1 to 31.5 months across the studies, with the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab demonstrating the most substantial reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.47 [95% CrI: 0.38, 0.58]), followed by avelumab monotherapy (HR 0.69 [95% CrI: 0.56, 0.86]). The limitations of this network meta-analysis include variability in study follow-up duration, lack of standardized methods for assessing PD-L1 positivity, and potential bias introduced by control arms with poorer survival outcomes across included trials. The enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab combination significantly improved survival and response rates. Avelumab showed notable single-agent activity. These findings provide a valuable framework to guide clinical decision-making and highlight priority areas for future research, including biomarker refinement and novel combination strategies to enhance antitumor immunity in this challenging malignancy.

Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Urothelial Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) has historically been the primary treatment for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC), with limited alternative options. The therapeutic landscape experienced a paradigm shift following the results of the EV-302 and Checkmate-901 trials, which led to the approval of Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV-P) as the preferred first-line treatment, and nivolumab plus CTX for those unable to receive the preferred regimen. Currently, further investigations are underway to explore PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the initial treatment of aUC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-CTX combinations versus CTX alone as first-line treatment for advanced UC. Employing a random-effects model, we pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Our analysis encompassed 3 RCTs, involving 2162 participants, with 51.16% randomized to combination therapy with platinum-based CTX. Compared to CTX alone, immune-chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.93; P < .01), progression-free survival (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70-0.86; P < .01), and objective response rate (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.06-1.36; P < .01), while elevating the risk of immune-related adverse events (P-value = .02).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of RCTs, ICI plus CTX demonstrated a significant association with improved survival at the expense of an increased risk of immune-related adverse events. Therefore, our findings suggest that this combination should be considered as an initial treatment for aUC in platinum-eligible patients who cannot receive EV-P.

Immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: an abridged Cochrane review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy as first- and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

Based on a published protocol, we performed a systematic search of multiple databases. Two review authors independently performed the literature selection, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence on a per-outcome basis according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials and also identified seven single-arm studies. When used as first-line therapy, immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause compared to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on health-related quality of life (mean difference [MD] 4.10, 95% CI 3.83-4.37; moderate). Immunotherapy probably reduces grade 3-5 adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.75; moderate). In the second-line setting immunotherapy may reduce the risk of death from any cause (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81; low). Immunotherapy may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life when compared to chemotherapy (MD 4.82, 95% CI -3.11 to 12.75; low). Immunotherapy may reduce grade 3-5 adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97; low).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause in a first-line setting. Nevertheless, it may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy. The health-related quality of life of participants receiving first- and second-line therapy does not appear to be affected by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy probably reduces or may reduce grade 3-5 adverse events when used as first- and second-line therapy, respectively.

The evolving treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is currently the first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC); however, up to 50% of patients are ineligible for cisplatin, necessitating alternative treatment options. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to be effective in cisplatin-ineligible patients. However, despite advances in the first-line setting, the prognosis remains poor, and challenges persist in selecting optimal therapies, treatment sequences and combination regimens. Maintenance therapy with avelumab revealed improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with best supportive care alone in patients with platinum-responsive mUC. Antibody-drug conjugates and targeted therapy with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors have shown promise in selected patients, particularly in patients with metastatic disease that has progressed despite platinum-based chemotherapy. At the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress in 2023, groundbreaking results were presented from two phase III trials, EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 and CheckMate 901, focusing on previously untreated mUC. In the former, the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab showed significant improvements in OS, PFS and overall response rate compared with chemotherapy alone; the combination of nivolumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy demonstrated a significant extension in median OS, PFS and overall response rate compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer OS than chemotherapy among patients with mUC and FGFR alterations after previous treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This comprehensive summary of the current treatment landscape for mUC incorporates clinical trial evidence and discussion of agents that are currently under investigation to provide support for clinical decision making and understanding of future therapeutic approaches.

[The metastatic and advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma-a separate entity or bladder cancer's younger sibling?]

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a cancer that is often already in an advanced stage at the time of initial diagnosis. Although urothelial carcinoma of the upper and lower urinary tracts both originate from the urothelium and have similar genetic alterations, there are significant differences in their distribution. In localized high-risk UTUC, radical nephroureterectomy is the gold standard therapy. In metastatic UTUC, major changes are emerging in sequential therapy due to the investigation of new classes of drugs. In addition to platinum-based combination chemotherapy and immunotherapy, new substances such as antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and FGFR inhibitors are used.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line enfortumab vedotin in addition to pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the United States

Background and objective

The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin.

Conclusions

From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients.

Treatment Patterns and Real-World Outcomes for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer in the Era of Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There are limited data on real-world outcomes for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) since immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) became available. Our objective was to analyze outcomes for patients with mUC since ICIs became available.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 131 patients with mUC attending the outpatient clinic of a single tertiary care center who received systemic therapy between June 2017 and July 2021 with follow-up up to December 2022. Summary and descriptive statistics were calculated for categorical and continuous variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was applied to calculate survival, and a Cox proportional-hazards model was used to explore associations between clinical variables and outcomes.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The median patient age was 68 yr (range 35-90). The first systemic therapy administered was platinum-based in 79% of cases and ICI-based in 21%. Some 61% of the cohort received a second systemic treatment, with 75% of these an ICI. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 24 mo (interquartile range 9-35). Patients on ICI therapy for ≥6 mo had median overall survival of 59 mo (95% confidence interval 39 mo-not reached). Metastatic sites on initiation of ICI therapy and C-reactive protein kinetics were prognostic in patients receiving ICIs. Limitations include the retrospective design and inherent selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

More than 60% of patients with mUC received second-line treatment, and 75% of these received an ICI. Patients staying on immunotherapy for more than 6 mo have substantially better outcomes in comparison to patients with less time on immunotherapy and historical cohorts.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at the lines of therapy and outcomes for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer of the urinary tract, starting from when immunotherapy drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) became available. We found that 60% of patients have received second-line therapy, which is a double the rate in comparison to historical groups of patients. Patients with long-term ICI therapy (>6 months) had significantly better outcomes, with a median survival of more than 3 years.

A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Prospective Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Carboplatin (DD-MVACarbo) Chemotherapy for Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients with Advanced Urothelial Cancer: Study Protocol of the CARBUNCLE Trial

Unresectable, metastatic, advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) is an aggressive disease and is treated with platinum-containing first-line chemotherapy, followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates. Response to first-line chemotherapy is a vital priority in sequential treatment strategies because a better response to first-line chemotherapy is associated with a better response to subsequent therapies. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin chemotherapy is conventionally recommended for cisplatin-ineligible patients. This multicenter, single-arm prospective trial will investigate whether dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and carboplatin (DD-MVACarbo) chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine plus carboplatin chemotherapy in terms of efficacy in platinum-naïve, cisplatin-ineligible patients with aUC. After screening and registration, a total of 46 patients will be treated with this novel chemotherapy regimen. The primary endpoint is the objective response rate. The secondary endpoints include disease control rate, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events. No evidence of this novel intervention is available as of July 2024. The results are expected to change the standard of care and improve the management of patients with aUC.

Pembrolizumab plus either epacadostat or placebo for cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma: results from the ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 study

BACKGROUND

Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC.

METHODS

ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1).

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46-55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33-43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

Successful pre-surgical treatment with carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for a patient with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and severe renal dysfunction

Radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and pre-surgical treatment can improve survival. Carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy is considered an effective, safe treatment for patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy owing to reduced renal function. However, there is limited evidence on pre-surgical treatment with carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy with glomerular filtration rates < 30 mL/min. We discuss the treatment of a patient who did not undergo surgery owing to bladder tumor size of 12 cm (cT3bN0M1a) and severe renal dysfunction (serum creatinine: 2.57 mg/dL, estimated glomerular filtration rate: 20.2 mL/min/1.73 m2). After the patient received two courses of carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy, the bladder tumor size had reduced by 60%. No nausea or renal dysfunction was observed; febrile neutropenia improved with antibiotic therapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Then, he could undergo robot-assisted radical cystectomy after the pre-surgical chemotherapy treatment. Pre-surgical treatment with carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy is a viable treatment option for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and severe renal dysfunction.

A Podcast on Platinum Eligibility and Treatment Sequencing in Platinum-Eligible Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

The treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma continues to evolve. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab has received Food and Drug Administration approval based on recent phase 3 trial data showing superior efficacy compared with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, its distinct toxicity profile may make it less suitable for some patients, and availability in some countries may be limited by cost considerations. Consequently, platinum-based chemotherapy is expected to remain an important first-line treatment option. Choice of platinum regimen (cisplatin- or carboplatin-based) is informed by assessment of clinical characteristics, including performance status, kidney function, and presence of peripheral neuropathy or heart failure. For patients without disease progression after completing platinum-based chemotherapy, avelumab first-line maintenance treatment is recommended by international guidelines. For patients who have disease progression, pembrolizumab is the preferred approach. Additionally, following results from a recent phase 3 trial, nivolumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy has also received Food and Drug Administration approval and is an additional first-line treatment option for cisplatin-eligible patients. Later-line options for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, depending on prior treatment, may include enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib (for patients with FGFR2/3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements), sacituzumab govitecan, and platinum rechallenge. For the small proportion of patients ineligible for any platinum-based chemotherapy (i.e., unsuitable for cisplatin or carboplatin), immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab is a first-line treatment option, although approved agents vary between countries. In summary, this podcast discusses recent developments in the treatment landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma, eligibility for platinum-based chemotherapy, potential first-line treatment options, and treatment sequencing. Supplementary file1 (MP4 246907 KB).

Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel vs gemcitabine/carboplatin for advanced urothelial carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare in a phase III trial the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (GA) with that of carboplatin plus gemcitabine (GCb) as a first-line treatment for patients with cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment-naive, cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC were assigned randomly to either the GA (both nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or GCb group (carboplatin area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration versus time curve of 4.5 on Day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, every 21 days). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

The trial was terminated early because of slow accrual after 54 patients were enrolled: 26 in in the GA group and 28 in the GCb groups. The median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.9 months for the GA and GCb groups, respectively (P = 0.248). The median OS time was 12.1 vs 10.7 months for the GA and GCb groups, respectively (P = 0.837). The ORR and DCR were 40% vs 46.4% (P = 0.637) and 72% vs 68% (P = 0.188) in the GA and GCb groups, respectively. Patients treated with GA showed significantly lower incidence of Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and does reduction and delay. Although peripheral sensory neuropathy was higher in the GA arm, no Grade 3 neuropathy occurred. There was no difference in the PROs between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

While not powered for comparison, first-line GA showed similar efficacy and better tolerability and might be considered a rational alternative to GCb.

Pre-first-line chemotherapy risk stratification for overall survival in advanced urothelial carcinoma in sequential therapy era

PURPOSE

To explore pre-treatment risk factors for overall survival (OS) in advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) patients treated with first-line (1L) chemotherapy in sequential therapy (ST) era. Additionally, to evaluate the proportion of patients who were not able to undergo subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy according to the subgroups stratified by the risk factors.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Metastatic or locally advanced UC patients treated between 2017 and 2022 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test and multivariate Cox regression models were used to address OS.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fourteen patients treated with 1L chemotherapy were included in the study and 57 (18.2%) patients were not able to proceed to subsequent ICI therapy. Pre-chemotherapy risk factors for OS in 314 patients were ECOG-PS 1 or more, having no primary site resection, C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3 mg/dL or more, and non-cisplatin-based regimen. Patients having 3 or 4 risk factors had higher risk for not being able to receive ST (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). As risk factors for OS in 230 patients who were able to receive ST, having no primary site resection, a neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio of 3 or more, and the presence of liver metastasis were identified.

CONCLUSION

We reported the risk factors for OS in advanced UC patients treated with 1L chemotherapy in ST era. Patients with high risk for OS may not be able to proceed to subsequent ICI therapy even in the ST era.

Management of urothelial cancer in patients with chronic kidney disease receiving platinum-based chemotherapy

Despite recent advances in the management of urothelial cancer (UC), cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimens remain critical. However, their use can be complicated in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is not uncommon in UC patients. Based on the Galsky criteria for cisplatin ineligibility, most patients with CKD will be excluded from receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy altogether. For patients with borderline kidney function, several strategies - such as the use of split-dose cisplatin, dose reductions, or extra hydration - may facilitate the use of cisplatin, but these need to be prospectively validated. This review highlights the critical need for a multidisciplinary team, including onco-nephrologists, to help manage renal complications and optimize delivery of cancer care in complex UC patients with CKD.

How Immunotherapy Has Redefined the Treatment Paradigm of Metastatic or Locally Advanced Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma

In the past decade, the therapeutic arsenal for metastatic bladder cancer has expanded considerably, with the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), antibody-drug conjugates such as enfortumab vedotin, and anti-fibroblast growth factor receptor agents. Clinical trials evaluating ICIs as neoadjuvants, adjuvants, or first- or second-line treatments have produced conflicting results. However, first-line therapeutic strategies have been redefined by the recent publication of results from two clinical trials: CheckMate-901, which demonstrated the superiority of combined treatment with nivolumab and chemotherapy in extending overall survival, and EV-302, which demonstrated that combined treatment with pembrolizumab and enfortumab vedotin reduced the risk of death by 53%. In this review, we discuss the role of ICIs, alone or in combination, in bladder cancer management in the metastatic and adjuvant settings in 2024, considering the latest published trials. The potential role of ICIs as neoadjuvants is also discussed.

Improved Disease-Free Survival With Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Final Results of the POUT Trial

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 co-primary 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.POUT was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial, including 261 patients with muscle-invasive or lymph node-positive, nonmetastatic upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) randomly assigned after radical nephroureterectomy to platinum-based chemotherapy (132) or surveillance (129). Primary outcome analysis demonstrated that chemotherapy improved disease-free survival (DFS). At that time, the planned secondary outcome analysis of overall survival (OS) was immature. By February 2022, 50 and 67 DFS events had occurred in the chemotherapy and surveillance groups, respectively, at a median follow-up of 65 months. The 5-year DFS was 62% versus 45%, univariable hazard ratio (HR), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80, P = .001). The restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 18 months longer (95% CI, 6 to 30) in the chemotherapy arm. There were 46 and 60 deaths in the chemotherapy and control arms, respectively. The 5-year OS was 66% versus 57%, with univariable HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.00, P = .049) and RMST difference 11 months (95% CI, 1 to 21). Treatment effects were consistent across chemotherapy regimens (carboplatin or cisplatin) and disease stage. Toxicities were similar to those previously reported, and there were no clinically relevant differences in quality of life between arms. In summary, although OS was not the primary outcome measure, the updated results add further support for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with UTUC, suggesting long-term benefits.

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.

Establishment and validation of a nomogram for predicting overall survival of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma with bone metastasis: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Bone metastasis (BM) carries a poor prognosis for patients with upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This study aims to identify survival predictors and develop a prognostic nomogram for overall survival (OS) in UTUC patients with BM.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to select patients with UTUC between 2010 and 2019. The chi-square test was used to assess the baseline differences between the groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis was employed to assess OS. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors for nomogram establishment. An independent cohort was used for external validation of the nomogram. The discrimination and calibration of the nomogram were evaluated using concordance index (C-index), area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 and R software 4.2.2.

RESULTS

The mean OS for UTUC patients with BM was 10 months (95% CI: 8.17 to 11.84), with 6-month OS, 1-year OS, and 3-year OS rates of 41%, 21%, and 3%, respectively. Multi-organ metastases (HR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.95, P < 0.001), surgery (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.91, P = 0.007), and chemotherapy (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.46, P < 0.001) were identified as independent prognostic factors. The C-index was 0.725 for the training cohort and 0.854 for the validation cohort, and all AUC values were > 0.679. The calibration curve and DCA curve showed the accuracy and practicality of the nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The OS of UTUC patients with BM was poor. Multi-organ metastases was a risk factor for OS, while surgery and chemotherapy were protective factors. Our nomogram was developed and validated to assist clinicians in evaluating the OS of UTUC patients with BM.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in treating metastatic urothelial cancer

Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) is an important treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients. A lot of clinical evidence proved the survival benefits of ICI, but cost-effectiveness of the treatment remains unclear. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs treatment in different sequences among mUC patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed mUC patients who had been treated at our hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. These patients received chemotherapy with or without ICI treatment (Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, Nivolumab, Durvalumab, or Avelumab). The patients were divided into three different groups: receiving chemotherapy alone, receiving a combination of first-line ICI and chemotherapy (ICI combination therapy), and receiving chemotherapy as the first-line treatment followed by second-line ICI therapy (Subsequent ICI therapy). The primary endpoint was cost per life day, while lifetime medical costs and overall survival were also evaluated. Results: The 74 enrolled patients had a median age of 67.0 years, with 62.2% being male. Of these patients, 23 had received chemotherapy only, while the remaining patients had received combined therapy with ICI in either first-line or as subsequent agents (37 patients had ever received atezolizumab, 18 pembrolizumab, 1 Durvalumab, 1 Nivolumab, and 1 Avelumab separately.). Fifty-five patients (74.3%, 55/74) received cisplatin amongst all the patients who underwent chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 27.5 months (95% CI, 5.2-49.9) in the first-line ICI combination therapy group, and 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.1-10.8) in the chemotherapy only. Median overall survival for the subsequent ICI therapy group was not reached. The median lifetime cost after metastatic UC diagnosis was USD 31,221. The subsequent ICI therapy group had significantly higher costs when compared with the ICI combination therapy group (155.8 USD per day, [IQR 99.0 to 220.5] v 97.8 USD per day, [IQR 60.8 to 159.19], p = 0.026). Higher insurance reimbursement expenses for the subsequent ICI therapy group were observed when compared with the ICI combination therapy group. Conclusion: Our real-world data suggests that first line use of ICI combined with chemotherapy demonstrates better cost-effectiveness and similar survival outcomes for mUC patients, when compared with subsequent ICI therapy after chemotherapy.

Immunomodulatory effects and improved outcomes with cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy plus atezolizumab in urothelial cancer

In metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), cisplatin versus carboplatin leads to durable disease control in a subset of patients. The IMvigor130 trial reveals more favorable effects with atezolizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) versus gemcitabine and carboplatin (GemCarbo). This study investigates the immunomodulatory effects of cisplatin as a potential explanation for these observations. Our findings indicate that improved outcomes with GemCis versus GemCarbo are primarily observed in patients with pretreatment tumors exhibiting features of restrained adaptive immunity. In addition, GemCis versus GemCarbo ± atezolizumab induces transcriptional changes in circulating immune cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation and T cell activation programs. In vitro experiments demonstrate that cisplatin, compared with carboplatin, exerts direct immunomodulatory effects on cancer cells, promoting dendritic cell activation and antigen-specific T cell killing. These results underscore the key role of immune modulation in cisplatin's efficacy in mUC and highlight the importance of specific chemotherapy backbones in immunotherapy combination regimens.

Predictors of response to neoadjuvant therapy in urothelial cancer

Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NACC) followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Patients who achieve a complete pathological response following NACC have better overall survival than those with residual disease. However, a subset of patients does not derive benefit from NACC while experiencing chemotherapy-related side effects that may delay cystectomy, which can be detrimental. There is a need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers to better stratify patients who will derive benefits from NACC. This review summarizes the currently available literature on various predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Covered predictors include clinical factors, treatment regimens (including chemotherapy and immunotherapy), histological predictors, and molecular predictors such as DNA repair genes, p53, FGFR3, ERBB2, Bcl-2, EMMPRIN, survivin, choline-phosphate cytidylyltransferase-α, epigenetic markers, immunological markers, other molecular predictors and gene expression profiling. Further, we elaborate on the potential role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the correlative biomarkers of response.

Phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with genetic alterations in ERBB1-3 (LUX-Bladder 1)

BACKGROUND

Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib may be effective in urothelial cancers harbouring ERBB mutations.

METHODS

This open-label, phase II, single-arm trial (LUX-Bladder 1, NCT02780687) assessed the efficacy and safety of second-line afatinib 40 mg/d in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with ERBB1-3 alterations. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6) (cohort A); other endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, DCR and safety (cohorts A and B). Cohort A was planned to have two stages: stage 2 enrolment was based on observed antitumour activity.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enroled into cohort A and eight into cohort B. In cohorts A/B, PFS6 was 11.8%/12.5%, ORR was 5.9%/12.5%, DCR was 50.0%/25.0%, median PFS was 9.8/7.8 weeks and median OS was 30.1/29.6 weeks. Three patients (two ERBB2-amplified [cohort A]; one EGFR-amplified [cohort B]) achieved partial responses. Stage 2 for cohort A did not proceed. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), most commonly (any/grade 3) diarrhoea (76.2%/9.5%). Two patients (4.8%) discontinued due to AEs and one fatal AE was observed (acute coronary syndrome; not considered treatment-related).

CONCLUSIONS

An exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that basal-squamous tumours and ERBB2 amplification were associated with superior response to afatinib.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02780687.

Complete Pathologic Response With Pembrolizumab and Enfortumab Vedotin in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Upper Urinary Tract

Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UTUC) presents a significant clinical challenge, often requiring aggressive surgical intervention for optimal management. We present a case of an 84-year-old woman with recurrent high-grade papillary UTUC of the left renal pelvis, refractory to prior endourologic interventions, who underwent neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab and enfortumab vedotin (Pembro/EV) due to contraindications to cisplatin therapy. Following a favorable response to neoadjuvant therapy, the patient underwent laparoscopic left radical nephroureterectomy, achieving a pathologic complete response. We discuss the utility of Pembro/EV in the perioperative management of patients with UTUC, particularly in those ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy. In addition, we highlight the potential role of somatic mutation testing and the integration of novel therapeutic agents such as olaparib in personalized treatment strategies for UTUC. This case underscores the importance of exploring innovative treatment approaches and optimizing patient selection for kidney preservation strategies in the management of UTUC. Further research and clinical trials are warranted to elucidate the full therapeutic potential of Pembro/EV and other emerging therapies in this setting.

Latin American Consensus for the Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Metastatic/Locally Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Urothelial cancer accounts for approximately 3% of new cancer cases worldwide, with a high burden of disease in countries with medium and low human development indexes where its incidence and mortality are increasing. The purpose of this consensus is to develop statements on the evaluation and treatment of locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma that would further guide the clinical practice in Latin America.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted by an independent team of methodologists. Then, a modified Delphi method was developed with clinical specialists from different Latin American countries.

RESULTS

Forty-two consensus statements, based on evidence, were developed to address the staging, the evaluation (suitability for chemotherapy, risk assessment, and biomarkers), and systemic treatment (first-line and subsequent therapies) of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The statements made in this consensus are suggested practice recommendations in the Latin American context; however, the importance of a complete and individualized patient evaluation as a guide for therapeutic selection is highlighted. The availability and affordability of support tools for the evaluation of the disease, as well as specific therapies, may limit the application of the best practices suggested.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Therapeutic decisions need to be tailored to the context-specific clinical setting and availability of resources. Local research is promoted to improve outcomes for patients with this challenging cancer in Latin America.

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C.

METHODS

In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design.

METHODS

In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Progress in systemic therapy for advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma

Despite recent advances, advanced-stage urothelial carcinoma (aUC) remains incurable, with 5-year survival rates of approximately 10%. Platinum-based chemotherapy has a major role as first-line therapy for most patients with aUC. The approval of the anti-PD-L1 antibody avelumab as maintenance therapy for patients without initial disease progression on platinum-based chemotherapy is an important development that has improved the survival outcomes of patients with this disease. Otherwise, the use of first-line immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 has been restricted to patients who are ineligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. Other important developments include the FDA-accelerated approval of first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for patients ineligible to receive cisplatin and the availability of FGFR inhibitors, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan for subsequent lines of therapy. Several research questions remain unaddressed including the lack of adequate biomarkers, how to assign priority to the different treatment options for individual patients and which agents can be effective as monotherapies. The future is promising with the emergence of modalities such as antibody-drug conjugate-like drugs, next-generation ICIs, bispecific antibodies and cellular therapies. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of systemic therapy for patients with aUC and provide insights into the unmet needs.

Systemic treatment of advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer: The landscape in Australia

The 5-year survival rate of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is estimated to be as low as 5%. Currently, systemic platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy is the only first-line treatment for mUC that has an overall survival benefit. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (usually in combination with gemcitabine) is the preferred treatment but carboplatin is substituted where contraindications to cisplatin exist. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and kinase inhibitors has not yet demonstrated superiority to chemotherapy as first-line therapy and remains investigational in this setting. A recent media release indicates that chemotherapy plus nivolumab gives an OS advantage as first-line treatment but results of this study have not yet been made public. Pembrolizumab remains an option in those having primary progression on first-line chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The antibody-drug conjugate, enfortumab vedotin has TGA approval for patients whose cancer has progressed following chemotherapy and immunotherapy and has just received a positive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme recommendation. The use of molecular screens for somatic genetic mutations, gene amplifications, and protein expression is expanding as drugs that target such abnormalities show promise. However, despite these advances, a substantial proportion of patients with mUC have significant barriers to receiving any treatment, including advancing age, frailty, and comorbidities, and less toxic, effective therapies are needed.

Impact of pathological response on oncological outcomes in patients with upper tract urothelial cancer receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rates of pathological complete response (ypT0N0/X) and pathological response (ypT1N0/X or less) in patients with upper tract urothelial cancer who were treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and to examine their impact on oncological outcomes.

METHODS

This study is a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy between 2002 and 2021. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate all clinical parameters for response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the effect of the response on the oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients with UTUC who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy were identified. Among them, 44 (52.4%) patients received cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and 22 (26.2%) patients had a carboplatin-based regimen. The pathological complete response rate was 11.6% (n = 10), and the pathological response rate was 42.9% (n = 36). Multifocal tumors or tumors larger than 3 cm significantly reduced the odds of pathological response. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, pathological response was independently associated with better overall survival (HR 0.38, p = 0.024), cancer-specific survival (HR 0.24, p = 0.033), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.17, p = 0.001), but it was not associated with bladder recurrence-free survival (HR 0.84, p = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy is strongly associated with patient survival and recurrence, and it might be a good surrogate for evaluating the efficacy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in the future.

Screening for a practical method to monitor the status of patients with metastatic bladder cancer at the circulating cell-gene level

Identifying a novel method to monitor metastatic bladder cancer status at the cell-gene level could lead to earlier appropriate therapeutic intervention and better outcomes. In this study, we evaluated a practical method to monitor the cancer status at the circulating cell-gene level before and after treatment in fourteen patients with metastatic bladder cancer who were indicated for systemic drug therapy. Patients were assessed via imaging before and after drug treatment, and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis was performed to detect three parameters: cfDNA level, ERRB2 gene copy numbers, and telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene mutations. We hypothesized that decreased cfDNA levels, a normal copy number of ERB-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2), and the absence of the TERT C228T mutation indicate cancer suppression. We found that a > 1.8-fold increase in cfDNA levels, increased copy number of ERBB2, or the existence of the TERT C228T mutation indicated disease progression. Stable cfDNA levels, normal ERBB2 copy number, and the absence of TERT C228T mutations indicate a stable cancer status. Collectively, our results show that the combination of cfDNA concentration, TERT mutation, and ERBB2 copy number may be useful for determining the efficacy of drug therapy in patients with metastatic bladder cancer.

Lymph Node Dissection in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review aims to evaluate the role of lymph node dissection (LND) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and its implications for staging and management outcomes, as well as future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have demonstrated the limitations of conventional imaging techniques in accurately localizing lymph node metastasis (LNM) in UTUC. While 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) shows promise for preoperative LNM detection, its specificity is low. Alternative methods such as choline PET/CT and sentinel lymph node detection are under consideration but require further investigation. Additionally, various preoperative factors associated with LNM hold potential for predicting nodal involvement, thereby improving nodal staging and oncologic outcomes of LND. Several surgical approaches, including segmental ureterectomy and robot-assisted nephroureterectomy, provide a possibility for LND, while minimizing morbidity. LND remains the primary nodal staging tool for UTUC, but its therapeutic benefit is still uncertain. Advances in imaging techniques and preoperative risk assessment show promise in improving LNM detection. Further research and multi-center studies are needed to comprehensively assess the advantages and limitations of LND in UTUC, as well as the long-term outcomes of alternative staging and treatment strategies.

Avelumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

This work provides a summary of guideline recommendations and an expert position on the use of maintenance avelumab therapy based on a review of current international clinical practice guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). A PubMed literature search was conducted in March 2022 (updated in July 2023) to identify guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic UC. An expert panel (four oncologists and one urologist) reviewed the guidelines and clinical evidence, and discussed practical questions regarding the use of avelumab maintenance therapy in this clinical setting. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line cisplatin-containing chemotherapy for cisplatin-eligible patients, carboplatin-gemcitabine for cisplatin-ineligible patients who are fit for carboplatin, or immunotherapy with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (e.g. atezolizumab) in platinum-ineligible patients. Maintenance avelumab is recommended in patients with response/stable disease following chemotherapy (regardless of PD-L1 status). In patients who relapse after/during chemotherapy, options include immunotherapy, erdafitinib [in those with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations], enfortumab vedotin or further chemotherapy. The expert panel provided the following practical guidance: (1) consider maintenance avelumab in all eligible patients; (2) continue avelumab until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity; (3) ideally, administer six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy prior to maintenance avelumab; (4) perform radiological evaluation after four chemotherapy cycles and prior to maintenance avelumab; (5) carboplatin-gemcitabine followed by maintenance avelumab is preferred in cisplatin-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 expression), but consider first-line immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients and platinum-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 status); and (6) for patients who relapse on avelumab, second-line options include enfortumab vedotin, FGFR inhibitors (in those with FGFR mutations) or clinical trial inclusion. In conclusion, avelumab maintenance therapy is recommended following platinum-based chemotherapy in all eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC, continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: the ARON-2 study

BACKGROUND

The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors has challenged previous treatment paradigms for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the post-platinum setting as well as in the first-line setting for cisplatin-ineligible patients. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible UC.

METHODS

Data from patients aged ≥ 18 years with cisplatin-ineligible UC and receiving first-line pembrolizumab from January 1st 2017 to September 1st 2022 were collected. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined according to the Galsky criteria. Thirty-three Institutions from 18 countries were involved in the ARON-2 study.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 162 patients. The median follow-up time was 18.9 months (95%CI 15.3-76.9). In the overall study population, the median OS was 15.8 months (95%CI 11.3-32.4). The median OS was significantly longer in males versus females while no statistically significant differences were observed between patients aged < 65y versus ≥ 65y and between smokers and non-smokers. According to Recist 1.1 criteria, 26 patients (16%) experienced CR, 32 (20%) PR, 39 (24%) SD and 55 (34%) PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the role of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-unfit patients. Further studies investigating the biological and immunological characteristics of UC patients are warranted in order to optimize the outcome of patients receiving immunotherapy in this setting.