Immune checkpoint inhibitors as a real hope in advanced urothelial carcinoma

Erdafitinib treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a real-world analysis

Background

Erdafitinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor is a standard post chemotherapy advanced treatment line for metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2/3 genomic alterations. It was approved based on a phase 2 clinical trial, revealing a 40% response rate, and 13.8 months overall survival. These FGFR genomic alterations are uncommon. Thus, real-world data on erdafitinb use is scant. We herein describe erdafitinib treatment outcome in a real world patient cohort.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients treated with erdafitinib from 9 Israeli medical centers.

Results

Twenty-five patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (median age 73, 64% male, 80% with visceral metastases) were treated with erdafitinib between January 2020 to October 2022. A clinical benefit (complete response 12%, partial response 32%, stable disease 12%) was seen in 56%. Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and median overall survival 6.73 months. Treatment related toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 52%, and 32% discontinued therapy due to adverse events.

Conclusions

Erdafitinib therapy is associated with a clinical benefit in the real world setting, and associated with similar toxicity as reported in prospective clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study.

METHODS

The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597.

FINDINGS

Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations.

FUNDING

Janssen Research & Development.

Clinicopathological analysis of hepatic immune-related adverse events in comparison with autoimmune hepatitis and graft-versus host disease

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) are widely used to treat advanced metastatic cancers. Neutralisation of PD-1 or CTLA-4 by ICIs results in immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The clinicopathological features of twelve patients with hepatic irAEs were evaluated and compared to those of ten patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). No significant difference was seen in serum levels of transaminases, whereas serum levels of IgG and anti-nuclear antibody were higher in patients with AIH than in those with GVHD or hepatic irAEs. Inflammation was limited to the liver lobes in patients with GVHD or hepatic irAEs, whereas patients with AIH exhibited both portal and lobular inflammation. Immunohistochemical analyses revealed a predominant infiltration of CD8⁺ T cells and defective accumulation of regulatory T cells (Tregs) expressing forkhead box p3 (FOXP3) in the lobular areas of patients with hepatic irAEs and GVHD. In contrast, periportal lesions of patients with AIH were characterised by an infiltration of CD4⁺ T cells, CD8⁺ T cells, CD20⁺ B cells, and FOXP3⁺ Tregs. Overall, the activation of CD8⁺ T cells in the absence of activation of Tregs potentially underlies the immunopathogenesis of hepatic irAEs.

Combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Cancers: From Clinical Practice to Ongoing Clinical Trials

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) are inhibitory checkpoints that are commonly seen on activated T cells and have been offered as promising targets for the treatment of cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)targeting PD-1, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, and those targeting its ligand PD-L1, including avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab, and two drugs targeting CTLA-4, including ipilimumab and tremelimumab have been approved for the treatment of several cancers and many others are under investigating in advanced trial phases. ICIs increased antitumor T cells’ responses and showed a key role in reducing the acquired immune system tolerance which is overexpressed by cancer and tumor microenvironment. However, 50% of patients could not benefit from ICIs monotherapy. To overcome this, a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is frequently investigated as an approach to improve oncological outcomes. Despite promising results for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, safety concerns slowed down the development of such strategies. Herein, we review data concerning the clinical activity and the adverse events of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy, assessing ongoing clinical trials to identify clinical outlines that may support combination therapy as an effective treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is one of the first studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy in several cancers.

A comparative view on the expression patterns of PD-L1 and PD-1 in soft tissue sarcomas

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are heterogeneous cancers associated with poor prognosis due to high rates of local recurrence and metastasis. The programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1) is expressed in several cancers. PD-L1 interacts with its receptor, PD-1, on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), thereby attenuating anti-cancer immune response. Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting this interaction have been established as effective anti-cancer drugs. However, studies on the PD-L1 and PD-1 expression status in STS are commonly limited by small sample size, analysis of single STS subtypes, or lack of combinatorial marker assessment. To overcome these limitations, we evaluated the expression patterns of intratumoral PD-L1, the number of TILs, their PD-1 expression, and associations with clinicopathological parameters in a large and comprehensive cohort of 225 samples comprising six STS subtypes. We found that nearly all STS subtypes showed PD-L1 expression on the tumor cells, albeit with a broad range of positivity across subtypes (50% angiosarcomas to 3% synovial sarcomas). Co-expression and correlation analyses uncovered that PD-L1 expression was associated with more PD-1-positive TILs (P < 0.001), higher tumor grading (P = 0.016), and worse patients' 5-year overall survival (P = 0.028). The results were in line with several publications on single STS subtypes, especially when comparing findings for STS with low and high mutational burden. In sum, the substantial portion of PD-L1 positivity, the co-occurrence of PD-1-positive TILs, and the association of PD-L1 with unfavorable clinical outcome provide rationales for immune checkpoint inhibition in patients with PD-L1-positive STS.

Novel risk group stratification for metastatic urothelial cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel risk scoring system for urothelial cancer (UC) patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 67 UC patients treated with ICI at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from 2015 to 2018. Using stepwise variable selection in Cox proportional hazard model and Sullivan's weighting schema, baseline platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), presence of liver metastasis, baseline albumin, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were used for risk scoring. Patients were categorized into good risk (risk score 0-1), intermediate risk (risk score 2-3), and poor risk (risk score 4-6). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA) and Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The Emory Risk Scoring System had C-statistics of 0.74 (Standard Error = 0.047) in predicting OS and 0.70 (Standard Error = 0.043) in predicting PFS. Compared to good risk patients, poor risk patients had significantly shorter OS and PFS in both UVA and MVA (all P < .001), and intermediate risk patients had significantly shorter OS and PFS in both UVA and MVA (all P < .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk scoring using baseline PLR, presence of liver metastasis, baseline albumin, and baseline ECOG PS may effectively predict OS and PFS in UC patients receiving ICI.