Search

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., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

Introduction: First-line systemic therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (mUC) consists of platinum-based chemotherapy in most patients and PD1/L1 inhibitors in selected patients. Multiple combination chemoimmunotherapy trials failed to show a clear benefit over chemotherapy alone. We used real-world data to evaluate clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with receipt of first-line chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or combination chemoimmunotherapy treatment for metastatic bladder cancer and examined differences in overall survival (OS)., Materials and Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients with stage IV mUC diagnosed between 2014 and 2018, who were treated with first-line immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or combination treatment. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to determine factors associated with treatment receipt Adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate the association between treatment and OS., Results: In our cohort of 4,169 patients, multivariable analysis identified increasing age (RRR: 1.07, 95%CI, 1.06-1.08) and comorbidity burden (, as independent predictors of receiving immunotherapy. Treatment at an academic facility was associated with increased likelihood of combination treatment (RRR: 1.29, 95%CI, 1.01-1.65). After IPTW, we found that combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95%CI, 0.62-0.83) was associated with improved survival compared to chemotherapy., Conclusions: Patients with older age and more comorbidities were more likely to receive immunotherapy than chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Utilization of chemoimmunotherapy was observed to be higher in academic centers and was associated with improved survival compared to chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration., Key Findings and Limitations: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301., Patient Summary: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comprehensive profiling of autoantibodies (AAbs) in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) has not been performed to date. This may aid in diagnosis of UC, uncover novel therapeutic targets in this disease as well as identify associations between AAbs and response and toxicity to systemic therapies., Methods: We used serum from patients with mUC collected prior to and after systemic therapy (immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC)) at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 38 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) from healthy blood donors were also evaluated. The SeroTag immuno-oncology discovery array (Oncimmune) was used, with quantification of the AAb reactivity toward 1132 antigens. Bound AAbs were detected using an anti-immunoglobulin G-specific detection antibody conjugated to the fluorescent reporter dye phycoerythrin. The AAb reactivity was reported as the median fluorescence intensity for each color and sample using a Luminex FlexMAP3D analyzer. Clinical outcomes of interest included radiographic response and development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Significance analysis of microarray was used to compare mUC versus HC and radiographic response. Associations with irAE were evaluated using a logistic regression model. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: 66 patients were included with a median age of 68 years; 54 patients (82%) received ICI and 12 patients (18%) received PBC. Compared with HCs, AAbs against the cancer/testis antigens (CTAG1B, CTAG2, MAGEB18), HSPA1A, TP53, KRAS, and FGFR3 were significantly elevated in patients with mUC. AAbs against BRCA2, TP53, and CTNBB1 were associated with response, and those against BICD2 and UACA were associated with resistance to ICI therapy. AAbs against MITF, CDH3, and KDM4A were associated with development of irAEs in patient who received an ICI. A higher variance in pre-to-post treatment fold change in AAb levels was seen in patients treated with ICI versus PBC and was associated with response to ICI., Conclusions: This is the first report of comprehensive AAb profiling of patients with mUC and identified key AAbs that were elevated in patients with mUC versus HCs as well as AAbs associated with therapeutic response to ICI. These findings are hypothesis generating and further mechanistic studies evaluating humoral immunity in UC are required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PR: research funding (to institution) from Lilly, Bayer, and Telix and speaker’s fees from OncLive. BAM: consulting fees from BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Gilead, Pfizer, and Seagen and research funding (to institution) from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seagen. JEB: speaker honoraria from Guardant Health; consulting fees from Guardant Health, Genome Medical, Oncotect, Precede, TracerDx, Musculo, and JucaBio; equity in Cityblock Health, Genome Medical, Oncotect, Precede, TracerDx, and Musculo; and filed an institutional patent on methods to detect neuroendocrine prostate cancer through tissue-informed cell-free DNA methylation analysis. GS: in advisory board of BMS, Genentech, EMD Serono, Merck, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Janssen, Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Gilead, Scholar Rock, G1 Therapeutics, Eli Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Lucence Health, IMV, Vial, Syapse, Tempus, Ellipses Pharma, PrecisCa, and Primum; in consultant/scientific advisory board of Suba Therapeutics, Syapse, Servier, Merck, and Syncorp; received research support (to institution) from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Helsinn, Lucence, BMS, EMD Serono, and Jazz Therapeutics; received speaker's fees from Seagen, Gilead, Natera, Exelixis, Janssen, Bayer, and Aveo; received data safety monitoring committee honorarium from Mereo; received writing/editor fees from UpToDate, Practice Update, and Onviv; and spouse employed in Myriad. PB, BAA, ER, JG, AS-S, ALK, MB, and H-DZ are employees of Oncimmune., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Effective treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) providing targeted drug delivery have shown antitumor activity in this setting. AGS15E is an investigational ADC that delivers the cytotoxic drug monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing SLITRK6, a UC-associated antigen., Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase I dose-escalation and expansion trial of AGS15E in patients with mUC (NCT01963052). During dose escalation, AGS15E was administered intravenously at six levels (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 mg/kg), employing a continual reassessment method to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the dose-expansion cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AGS15E in patients with and without prior chemotherapy and with prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Best overall response was also examined., Results: Ninety-three patients were recruited, including 33 patients previously treated with CPI. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (54.8%), nausea (37.6%), and decreased appetite (35.5%). Peripheral neuropathy and ocular toxicities occurred at doses of ≥0.75 mg/kg. AGS15E increased in a dose-proportional manner after single- and multiple-dose administration; accumulation was low. Five DLT occurred from 0.50 to 1.25 mg/kg. The RP2D was assessed at 1.00 mg/kg; the objective response rate (ORR) was 35.7% at this dose level. The ORR in the total population and CPI-exposed subgroup were 18.3% and 27.3%, respectively., Conclusions: DLT with AGS15E were observed at 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 mg/kg, with an RP2D of 1.00 mg/kg being determined., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Methods: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes., Results: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively., Conclusions: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Several programmed death ligand-1 (PD1/L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Patients and Methods: To address the need for predictors of the efficacy of ICIs in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), randomized controlled trials of PD1/L1 inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy in this patient population were systematically reviewed, and differences in ICI-associated survival outcomes according to available baseline variables were quantitatively assessed., Results: The quantitative analysis included 6524 patients with mUC. No visceral metastatic site (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and high PDL-1 expression (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.640.87) were significantly associated with a reduced risk of death., Conclusion: Treatment with an ICI-containing regimen was associated with a reduced risk of death in mUC patients, which was associated with PDL-1 expression and metastatic site. Further research is warranted., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) have a poor prognosis. With recent therapeutic advances, data on real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients with la/mUC treated with first-line therapy are limited, particularly when comparing patients who are cisplatin-ineligible versus cisplatin-eligible., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of real-world first-line treatment patterns and OS in patients with la/mUC stratified by cisplatin-eligibility and treatment. Data were from a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database. Eligible patients were adults diagnosed with la/mUC from May 2016 to April 2021 and followed until death or end of data availability in January 2022. OS stratified by first-line treatment and cisplatin eligibility was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared via multivariable Cox proportional-hazard models adjusted for clinical covariates., Results: Of 4,757 patients with la/mUC, 3,632 (76.4%) received first-line treatment, with 2,029 (55.9%) cisplatin-ineligible and 1,603 (44.1%) cisplatin-eligible. Patients who were cisplatin-ineligible were older (mean age, 74.9 vs. 68.8 years) and had lower CrCl (median, 46.4 vs. 87.0 ml/min). Only 43.8% of patients receiving first-line treatment (37.6% cisplatin-ineligible vs. 51.6% cisplatin-eligible) received second-line therapy. Median OS in all patients receiving first-line treatment was 10.8 (95% CI, 10.2-11.3) months and was shorter in patients who were cisplatin-ineligible than cisplatin-eligible (8.5 [95% CI, 7.8-9.0] vs. 14.4 [13.3-16.1]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.9 [0.7-1.1]). Cisplatin-based therapy was associated with longer OS (17.6 [15.1-20.4] months) than other first-line treatments (the shortest OS was with PD-1/L1 inhibitor monotherapy; 7.7 [6.8-8.8] months), including among patients who were classified as cisplatin-ineligible., Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed la/mUC are poor, particularly for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible and/or do not receive cisplatin-based therapy. Many patients with la/mUC did not receive first-line treatment and among those who did, fewer than half received second-line therapy. These data highlight the need for more effective first-line therapies for all patients with la/mUC., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Precision medicine has transformed the way urothelial carcinoma is managed. However, current practices are limited by the availability of tissue samples for genomic profiling and the spatial and temporal molecular heterogeneity observed in many studies. Among rapidly advancing genomic sequencing technologies, non-invasive liquid biopsy has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool to reproduce tumour genomics, and has shown potential to be integrated in several aspects of clinical care. In urothelial carcinoma, liquid biopsies such as plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and urinary tumour DNA (utDNA) have been investigated as a surrogates for tumour biopsies and might bridge many shortfalls currently faced by clinicians. Both ctDNA and utDNA seem really promising in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, staging and prognosis, response to therapy monitoring, detection of minimal residual disease and surveillance. The use of liquid biopsies in patients with urothelial carcinoma could further advance precision medicine in this population, facilitating personalized patient monitoring through non-invasive assays., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Introduction: The standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy or upfront radical cystectomy for cisplatin-ineligible patients. In those who are ineligible for or refuse radical cystectomy, trimodal therapy with chemoradiation is offered. However, with the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and antibody-drug conjugates such as enfortumab vedotin in the metastatic setting, several trials are implementing these drugs in the neoadjuvant setting for cisplatin ineligible patients. Indeed, nivolumab is approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma., Areas Covered: Clinical trials using ICI, ICI/ICI, and ICI/chemotherapy combination therapies in the perioperative setting have been completed. These clinical trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant ICI are safe and have encouraging pCR, making them promising treatment options. Neoadjuvant enfortumab vedotin alone and in combination with pembrolizumab is also being studied, and preliminarily to have promising activity. ICI is also being combined with radiation therapy (RT) and early data indicate that ICI combined with RT or chemo-RT may be safe with promising activity., Expert Opinion: Biomarkers are urgently needed to identify appropriate treatment options for individual patients. The use of novel treatment approaches and biomarkers will help shape the future of precision therapy for MIBC and enable bladder preservation.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have transformed the treatment landscape in oncology and become an essential therapeutic modality. In urothelial carcinoma (UC), the two ADCs that have been especially successful in clinical practice are enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan. These drugs are currently approved as monotherapy for later lines of treatment in locally advanced or metastatic UC and have had a significant impact for patients with limited treatment options. Combinational trials, as well as additional ADCs, are currently being investigated in the treatment of UC for subsequent lines of therapy as overall survival rates remain dismal., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

CV301 comprises recombinant poxviruses, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) and Fowlpox (FPV), encoding CEA, MUC-1, and co-stimulatory Molecules (TRICOM) ICAM-1, LFA-3, and B7-1. MVA-BN-CV301 is used for priming and FPV-CV301 is used for boosting. A Phase 2, single-arm trial was designed to evaluate CV301 plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) (Cohort 1) or progressing after platinum chemotherapy (Cohort 2). MVA-CV301 was given subcutaneously (SC) on Days 1 and 22 and FPV-CV301 SC from day 43 every 21 days for 4 doses, then tapered gradually over up to 2 years. Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV was given every 21 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 43 evaluable patients received therapy: 19 in Cohort 1; 24 in Cohort 2; nine experienced ≥ Grade 3 therapy-related adverse events. In Cohort 1, one had partial response (PR) (ORR 5.3%, 90% CI 0.3, 22.6). In Cohort 2, 1 complete response and 1 PR were noted (ORR 8.3%, 90% CI 1.5, 24.0). The trial was halted for futility. Patients exhibiting benefit demonstrated T-cell response to CEA and MUC-1. The trial illustrates the challenges in the development of vaccines, which should be guided by robust preclinical data., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The treatment landscape for advanced-stage, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has shifted dramatically over a short period of time, with new therapeutic agents available for clinical use. However, despite these recent advances in the field, mUC continues to be a disease with significant morbidity and mortality and remains generally incurable. While platinum-based therapy remains the backbone of therapy, many patients are ineligible for chemotherapy or have failed initial chemotherapy treatment. In post-platinum treated patients, immunotherapy and antibody drug conjugates have provided incremental advances, but agents with better therapeutic index guided by precision medicine are needed., Areas Covered: This article covers the available monoclonal antibody therapies in mUC excluding immunotherapy and antibody drug conjugates. Included are a review of data utilizing monoclonal antibodies targeting VEG-F, HER-2, FGFR, and KIR-2 in the setting of mUC. A literature search from 6/2022- 9/2022 was performed utilizing PubMed with key terms including urothelial carcinoma, monoclonal antibody, VEG-F, HER-2, FGFR., Expert Opinion: Often used in combination with immunotherapy or other therapeutic agents, monoclonal antibody therapies have exhibited efficacy in mUC in early trials. Upcoming clinical trials will further explore their full clinical utility in treating mUC patients.

Background: Early progression on first-line (1L) platinum-based therapy or between therapy lines may be a surrogate of more aggressive disease and poor outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but its prognostic role regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response and survival is unclear. We hypothesized that shorter time until start of second-line (2L) ICI would be associated with worse outcomes in aUC., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study in patients with aUC treated with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, who received 2L ICI. Patients receiving switch maintenance ICI were excluded. We defined time to 2L ICI therapy as the time between the start of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy to the start of 2L ICI and categorized patients a priori into 1 of 3 groups: less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months. We calculated overall response rate (ORR) with 2L ICI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of 2L ICI. ORR was compared among the 3 groups using multivariable logistic regression, and PFS, OS using cox regression. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors., Results: We included 215, 215, and 219 patients in the ORR, PFS, and OS analyses, respectively, after exclusions. ORR difference did not reach statistical significance between patients with less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months to 2L ICI. However, PFS (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and OS (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.10-2.84) was shorter among those with time to 2L ICI less than 3 months compared to those who initiated 2L ICI more than 6 months., Conclusion: Among patients with aUC treated with 2L ICI, time to 2L ICI less than 3 months was associated with lower, but not significantly different ORR, but shorter PFS and OS compared to 2L ICI more than 6 months. This highlights potential cross resistance mechanisms between ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The patterns of care and attrition of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) patients eligible for systemic therapy following PD-1/L1 inhibitors are unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among patients with la/mUC following discontinuation of first-line (1L) or second-line (2L) PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy., Methods: An ambispective, multisite, chart review study was conducted in the United States, including patients with la/mUC. Eligible patients had initiated and subsequently discontinued PD-1/L1 therapy in the 1L or 2L setting for la/mUC between May 2016 and July 2018; with follow-up through October 2019. Patient characteristics, treatments, and overall survival (OS) were described. Patients had the option to complete a 1-time patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey., Results: Among 300 patients included in the chart review, 198 (66%) received 1L PD-1/L1 inhibitor and 102 (34%) received 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitor. Following discontinuation of PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy, 34% (n = 68) received subsequent therapy in 2L and 29% (n = 30) in third-line (3L). The median OS post-1L PD-1/L1 inhibitor was 9.4 (95% CI 8.6-NA) and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.24-3.50) for those who received and did not receive subsequent therapy, respectively. Following 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitor discontinuation, the median OS was 5.7 (95% CI 5.1-7.8) and 3.98 (95% CI 3.29-4.87) months for those who received and did not receive subsequent therapy, respectively. Among those with PRO data, 64% reported experiencing cancer-related pain and 29.6% received an opioid. Only 12.7% reported having a caregiver, requiring approximately 13 h/d of service., Conclusion: The symptom and caregiver burden are high among real-world patients with la/mUC who discontinued 1L or 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitors and outcomes are dismal, with a minority receiving subsequent therapy. Patterns of care in the setting of 1L maintenance avelumab and novel agents require further investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Given the low incidence of urachal carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), there is limited published data from contemporary population-based cohorts. This study aimed to describe demographic, clinicopathological features, and survival outcomes of patients diagnosed with UCB., Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004-2016) was queried for UCB patients. Descriptive analyses characterized demographics and clinicopathologic features. We assessed 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of the entire cohort and subgroups of localized/locally advanced and metastatic disease. We utilized Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association between covariates of interest and all-cause mortality and to examine the impact of surgical technique and chemotherapy., Results: We identified 841 patients with UCB. The most common histologic subtype was non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (39.6%). Approximately 50% had ≥cT2 disease, and 14.3% were metastatic at diagnosis. Altogether, partial cystectomy (60%) was most performed, and lymph node dissection was performed in 377 patients (44.8%), with specific temporal increase in utilization over the study period (p < 0.001). Overall, median OS was 59 months, and 5-year OS was 49%. In patients with localized/locally advanced disease, we found no association between partial and radical cystectomy (Hazards ratio [HR] 1.75; 95% CI 0.72-4.3) as well as receipt of perioperative chemotherapy (HR 1.97, 95% CI 0.79-4.90) and outcomes. Lastly, receipt of systemic therapy was not associated with survival benefit (HR 0.785, 95% CI 0.37-1.65) in metastatic disease cohort., Conclusion: This large population-based cohort provides insight into the surgical management and systemic therapy, without clear evidence on the association of chemotherapy and survival in the perioperative and metastatic setting., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Platinum-based chemotherapy has long been the backbone of treatment for urothelial carcinoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment paradigm and significantly improved outcomes for many patients. More recently, targeted agents such as erdafitinib and antibody drug conjugates enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan have demonstrated robust efficacy after progression on prior chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Many additional agents are currently under investigation in ongoing clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the current treatment landscape, review recent clinical data resulting in approval of novel therapeutic agents and highlight important ongoing studies focusing on the therapeutic landscape beyond immune checkpoint inhibition., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors., Results: We included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately., Conclusion: Prior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases., (© 2022 BJU International.)

Background: Sites of metastasis have prognostic significance in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but more information is needed regarding outcomes based on metastatic sites in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We hypothesized that presence of liver/bone metastases would be associated with worse outcomes with ICI., Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of patients with aUC across 26 institutions, collecting demographics, clinicopathological, treatment, and outcomes information. Outcomes were compared with logistic (observed response rate; ORR) and Cox (progression-free survival; PFS, overall survival; OS) regression between patients with/without metastasis beyond lymph nodes (LN) and those with/without bone/liver/lung metastasis. Analysis was stratified by 1st or 2nd + line., Results: We identified 917 ICI-treated patients: in the 1st line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (Hazard ratio; HR: 1.65 and 2.54), OS (HR: 1.60 and 2.35, respectively) and lower ORR (OR: 0.48 and 0.31). In the 2nd + line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (HR: 1.71 and 1.62), OS (HR: 1.76 and 1.56) and, for bone-only metastases, lower ORR (OR: 0.29). In the 1st line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.53), OS (HR:0.49) and higher ORR (OR: 2.97). In the 2nd + line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.47), OS (HR: 0.54), and higher ORR (OR: 2.79); all associations were significant., Conclusion: Bone and/or liver metastases were associated with worse, while LN-confined metastases were associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC receiving ICI. These findings in a large population treated outside clinical trials corroborate data from trial subset analyses., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma is generally incurable with current systemic therapies. Chromatin modifiers are frequently mutated in bladder cancer, with ARID1A-inactivating mutations present in about 20% of tumors. EZH2, a histone methyltransferase, acts as an oncogene that functionally opposes ARID1A. In addition, PI3K signaling is activated in more than 20% of bladder cancers. Using a combination of in vitro and in vivo data, including patient-derived xenografts, we show that ARID1A-mutant tumors were more sensitive to EZH2 inhibition than ARID1A WT tumors. Mechanistic studies revealed that (a) ARID1A deficiency results in a dependency on PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling via upregulation of a noncanonical PI3K regulatory subunit, PIK3R3, and downregulation of MAPK signaling and (b) EZH2 inhibitor sensitivity is due to upregulation of PIK3IP1, a protein inhibitor of PI3K signaling. We show that PIK3IP1 inhibited PI3K signaling by inducing proteasomal degradation of PIK3R3. Furthermore, ARID1A-deficient bladder cancer was sensitive to combination therapies with EZH2 and PI3K inhibitors in a synergistic manner. Thus, our studies suggest that bladder cancers with ARID1A mutations can be treated with inhibitors of EZH2 and/or PI3K and revealed mechanistic insights into the role of noncanonical PI3K constituents in bladder cancer biology.

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptible FGFR3 alterations (activating mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements), ≤120 days following radical surgery and ineligible for/or refusing cisplatin-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receive either oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary end point: centrally determined disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival and safety/tolerability; exploratory end points: correlative biomarker analysis, quality-of-life and infigratinib pharmacokinetics.

Background: Treatment options have been historically limited for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Given the need for alternatives to platinum-based chemotherapy, including non-chemotherapy regimens for patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status, in 2010 (prior to the immune checkpoint blockade era in metastatic UC), we initiated a phase II trial to test the activity of everolimus or everolimus plus paclitaxel in the cisplatin-ineligible setting., Methods: This was an open-label phase II trial conducted within the US-based Hoosier Cancer Research Network (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01215136). Patients who were cisplatin-ineligible with previously untreated advanced UC were enrolled. Patients with both impaired renal function and poor performance status were enrolled into cohort 1; patients with either were enrolled into cohort 2. Patients received everolimus 10 mg daily alone (cohort 1) or with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cohort 2). The primary outcome was clinical benefit at 4 months. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints included genomic correlates of outcomes. The trial was not designed for comparison between cohorts., Results: A total of 36 patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2018 (cohort 1, N = 7; cohort 2, N = 29); the trial was terminated due to slow accrual. Clinical benefit at 4 months was attained by 0 (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0-41.0%) patients in cohort 1 and 11 patients (37.9%, 95% CI 20.7-57.7%) in cohort 2. Median PFS was 2.33 (95% CI 1.81-Inf) months in cohort 1 and 5.85 (95% CI 2.99-8.61) months in cohort 2. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events for 2 patients (29%) in cohort 1 and 11 patients (38%) in cohort 2. Molecular alterations in microtubule associated genes may be associated with treatment benefit but this requires further testing., Conclusion: Everolimus plus paclitaxel demonstrates clinical activity in cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic UC, although the specific contribution of everolimus cannot be delineated. Patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status may be difficult to enroll to prospective trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01215136)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. The data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors. Please contact the authors about reuse rights of the original data.)

Introduction: The treatment landscape in invasive primary carcinoma of the urethra of urothelial histology closely aligns that of locally advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. The survival benefit of perioperative chemotherapy for men undergoing radical surgery for primary urethral urothelial carcinoma (UUC) has not yet been well-elucidated., Patients and Methods: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified men diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive UUC (T2-4 N0-2 M0) from 2004 to 2016 treated with radical extirpative surgery. We compared OS between patients who had received peri-operative neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant (AC) chemotherapy and those who had not using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model., Results: A total of 191 patients met inclusion criteria. 113 patients (59.2%) did not receive chemotherapy, while 39 (20.4%) and 39 (20.4%) received NAC and AC, respectively. Median follow-up was 28.0 months. Upon multivariable analysis, receipt of NAC (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.91, P = .02) decreased the risk of all-cause mortality, while receipt of AC (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.41-1.41) was not significantly associated with an OS benefit, as compared to no chemotherapy., Conclusion: Our study is the first to evaluate treatment specific outcomes in male patients with primary carcinoma of the urethra. We observed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy in men with UUC was associated with OS benefit. The utilization of NAC may improve survival, consistent with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Serial evaluation of circulating tumor DNA may allow noninvasive assessment of drivers of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced urothelial cancer (aUC). We used a novel, amplicon-based next-generation sequencing assay to identify genomic alterations (GAs) pre- and post-therapy in 39 patients with aUC receiving ICI and 6 receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). One or more GA was seen in 95% and 100% of pre- and post-ICI samples, respectively, commonly in TP53 (54% and 54%), TERT (49% and 59%), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (33% and 33%). Clearance of ≥1 GA was seen in 7 of 9 patients responding to ICI, commonly in TP53 (n = 4), PIK3CA (n = 2), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 2). A new GA was seen in 17 of 20 patients progressing on ICI, frequently in BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 6), PIK3CA (n = 3), and TP53 (n = 3), which seldom emerged in patients receiving PBC. These findings highlight the potential for longitudinal circulating tumor DNA evaluation in tracking response and resistance to therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Research in recent years has led to the approval of new treatments that offer improved survival for patients. Enfortumab vedotin-ejfv is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody drug conjugate that binds Nectin-4, a protein expressed on bladder cancer cells, and delivers the tubulin toxin, monomethyl auristatin E, into the cell causing cell death. Enfortumab vedotin-ejfv has changed the standard of care treatment in urothelial carcinoma with a high response and disease-control rate, acceptable toxicity profile and improved overall survival for patients who previously had limited options after failure of chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy., Areas Covered: We review the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of enfortumab vedotin., Expert Opinion: Enfortumab vedotin-ejfv has shown promising efficacy and safety in pretreated patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. It is currently being evaluated in clinical trials in earlier lines of treatment and in combination therapy.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice., Competing Interests: Guru P. SonpavdeEmployment: Myriad GeneticsHonoraria: UpToDateConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Merck, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Astellas Pharma, Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Sciences, Scholar Rock, G1 Therapeutics, Loxo/Lilly, Infinity PharmaceuticalsSpeakers' Bureau: Physicans' Education Resource, Onclive, Research to Practice, MedscapeResearch Funding: Janssen (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), QED Therapeutics (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Predicine (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers SquibbOther Relationship: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Bavarian Nordic, Debiopharm Group, QED Therapeutics, Elsevier, Mereo BioPharma, G1 Therapeutics Kent W. MouwHonoraria: UpToDate, OncLive/MJH Life SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Urogen pharmaResearch Funding: PfizerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Institutional patent filed on mutational signatures of DNA repair deficiency Matthew MossanenOther Relationship: ElsevierNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but response rates can be modest. We compared outcomes between patients with and without prior intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), who received ICI for aUC, hypothesizing that prior intravesical BCG would be associated with worse outcomes., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 25 institutions in US and Europe. We compared observed response rate (ORR) using logistic regression; progression-free survival (PFS) and OS using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. Analyses were stratified by treatment line (first line/salvage) and included multivariable models adjusting for known prognostic factors., Results: A total of 1026 patients with aUC were identified; 614, 617, and 638 were included in ORR, OS, PFS analyses, respectively. Overall, 150 pts had history of prior intravesical BCG treatment. ORR to ICI was similar between those with and without prior intravesical BCG exposure in both first line and salvage settings (adjusted odds radios 0.55 [P= .08] and 1.65 [P= .12]). OS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.05 [P= .79] and 1.13 [P= .49]) and PFS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.12 [P= .55] and 0.87 [P= .39]) were similar between those with and without intravesical BCG exposure in first line and salvage settings., Conclusion: Prior intravesical BCG was not associated with differences in response and survival in patients with aUC treated with ICI. Limitations include retrospective nature, lack of randomization, presence of selection and confounding biases. This study provides important preliminary data that prior intravesical BCG exposure may not impact ICI efficacy in aUC., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate approved for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) refractory to prior therapy. In the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study, the authors looked at the experience with EV in patient subsets of interest for which activity had not been well defined in clinical trials., Methods: UNITE was a retrospective study of patients with aUC treated with recently approved agents. This initial analysis focused on patients treated with EV. Patient data were abstracted from chart reviews by investigators at each site. The observed response rate (ORR) was investigator-assessed for patients with at least 1 post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression. ORRs were compared across subsets of interest for patients treated with EV monotherapy., Results: The initial UNITE analysis included 304 patients from 16 institutions; 260 of these patients were treated with EV monotherapy and included in the analyses. In the monotherapy cohort, the ORR was 52%, and it was >40% in all reported subsets of interest, including patients with comorbidities previously excluded from clinical trials (baseline renal impairment, diabetes, and neuropathy) and patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations. Progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.8 and 14.4 months, respectively. Patients with a pure urothelial histology had a higher ORR than patients with a variant histology component (58% vs 42%; P = .06)., Conclusions: In a large retrospective cohort, responses to EV monotherapy were consistent with data previously reported in clinical trials and were also observed in various patient subsets, including patients with variant histology, patients with FGFR3 alterations, and patients previously excluded from clinical trials with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min and significant comorbidities., Lay Summary: Enfortumab vedotin, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, is an important new drug for the treatment of patients with advanced bladder cancer. This study looks at the effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin as it has been used at multiple centers since approval, and focuses on important patient populations previously excluded from clinical trials. These populations include patients with decreased kidney function, diabetes, and important mutations. Enfortumab vedotin is effective for treating these patients. Previously reported clinical trial data have been replicated in this real-world setting, and support the use of this drug in broader patient populations., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Prior durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 agent) studies in platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma evaluated a dose of 10 mg/kg administered every two weeks. The nonrandomised phase 3b STRONG study (NCT03084471) evaluated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose durvalumab at a more convenient dosing schedule in a previously treated patient population, more similar to a real-world clinical setting., Patients and Methods: 867 patients with urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma (UTC) who progressed on or after platinum or nonplatinum chemotherapy were treated with durvalumab 1500 mg every four weeks; 87% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1, and 13% had an ECOG PS of 2. The primary end-point was the incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESIs), including immune-mediated AEs (imAEs). Secondary and exploratory end-points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (at six and 12 months) (DCR)., Results: AESIs of any grade were reported in 51% of patients (8% grade ≥ 3). The incidence of imAEs was 11% (2% grade ≥ 3). The median OS was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.4-8.2) and ORR was 18% (95% CI: 14.8-20.6), with complete responses in 5% of patients and a DCR at six months of 19% (95% CI: 16.1-22.1)., Conclusion: Fixed-dose durvalumab monotherapy every four weeks has an acceptable safety profile and yields durable clinical activity in previously chemotherapy-treated patients with UTC. Safety and efficacy are consistent with previous durvalumab studies and other anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in this setting. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT03084471https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03084471., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The following authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper: Sang Joon Shin and Guilhem Roubaud. The following authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Guru P. Sonpavde: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Sanofi; Consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bicycle Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer and Seattle Genetics; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Medscape, Onclive, Physicans' Education Resource and Research to Practice; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb; Other financial or non-financial interests from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm Group, Elsevier and QED Therapeutics. Cora N. Sternberg: Has received consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genzyme, Immunomedics, Incyte, Medscape, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche and UroToday. Yohann Loriot: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Exelixis, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, Medivation, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Nektar, Oncogenex, Pfizer and Sanofi; Consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca; Clovis Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Roche and Seattle Genetics and institution consulting fees from Janssen and Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Pfizer and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca; Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Roche and Seattle Genetics. Jae Lyun Lee: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech and Seattle Genetics; Consulting fees from Alteogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GI Innovation, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Sanofi/Aventis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer; Stock or stock options from Immunomedics and Myovant Sciences. Aurelien Marabelle: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MERUS, MSD and Transgene; Consulting fees from AstraZeneca Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CERENIS THERAPEUTICS, Eisai, Gritstone Oncology, HiFiBiO Therapeutics, ImCheck therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Lytix Biopharma, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Merck Sharp & Dohme, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Redx Pharma, Roche, Sanofi, SERVIER, Sotio, Symphogen; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; Patents planned, issued or pending from Stanford University (Monoclonal antibodies against CD81); Stock or stock options from HiFiBiO Therapeutics and PEGASCY and PEGASCY (insitition); Other financial or non-financial interests from PEGASCY; Honoraria received from Elsevier as an editor for the European Journal of Cancer. AudeFléchon: Has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events and/or support for attending meetings and/or travel rom Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and Sanofi/Aventis. Damien Pouessel: Has received has received grants or contracts (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche and Seattle Genetics; Consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer and Sanofi; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology and Merck; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology and Pfizer. Vittorina Zagonel: Has received has received grants or contracts (institution) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly and Roche; Consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche and Servier; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer, Roche and Servier. Fabio Calabro: Has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology and Pfizer. Giuseppe L. Banna: Has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen-Cilag and Roche; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen and Pierre Fabre; Patents planned, issued or pending with ST Microelectronics “Deep Learning Motion Algorithm for Lung Cancer Early Detection in Embedded Systems” and “Image processing method, corresponding system and computer program product”. Francisco E. Vera-Badillo: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from AstraZeneca/MedImmune. Thomas Powles: Has received has received grants or contracts, consulting fees and/or payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seattle Genetics; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. Eva Hellmis: Has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen-Cilag. Paulo A. P. Miranda is a current employee of AstraZeneca with AstraZeneca stock or stock options. Ugochi Emeribe and Sun Min Oh are current employees of AstraZeneca. Ana Rita Lima is currently employed as a Third Party Service Provider to AstraZeneca. Sebastien J. Hotte: Has received grants or contracts (institution) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics and SignalChem; Consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer and Roche Canada; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc, Bayer, Janssen Oncology and Merck; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eisai., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Targeted sequencing of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a promising tool to monitor dynamic changes in the variant allele frequencies (VAF) of genomic alterations and predict clinical outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Methods: We performed targeted sequencing of 182 serial ctDNA samples from 53 patients with advanced UC., Results: Serial ctDNA-derived metrics predicted the clinical outcomes in patients with advanced UC. Combining serial ctDNA aggregate VAF (aVAF) values with clinical factors, including age, sex, and liver metastasis, improved the performance of prognostic models. An increase of the ctDNA aVAF by ≥1 in serial ctDNA samples predicted disease progression within 6 months in 90% of patients. The majority of patients with aVAFs ≤0.7 in three consecutive ctDNA samples achieved durable clinical responses (≥6 months)., Conclusions: Serial ctDNA analysis predicts disease progression and enables dynamic monitoring to guide precision medicine in patients with advanced UC., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is approved to treat metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) following platinum and PD1/L1 inhibitors. Since the outcomes and patterns of therapy of patients following discontinuation of EV are unknown, we conducted a retrospective study to assess this issue., Methods: Data were retrospectively obtained from patients with mUC following discontinuation of EV after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and PD1/L1 inhibitors. Objective response rate (ORR) was evaluated in those who received therapy post-EV. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the overall survival (OS) and compare patient characteristics and outcomes of those who did or did not receive treatment post-EV., Results: Data were available for 63 patients from 6 institutions: 46 (73%) were male and median age was 68 years (range 43-83). The median OS was 32 weeks. Thirty-two patients (51%) received therapy after EV. The OS of those who did vs. did not receive post-EV therapy was significantly different (median 43.1 vs. 16.9 weeks, P = .015). Longer duration of prior EV therapy was associated with receipt of post-EV therapy (P = .0437) as well as OS in both the treated (P = .045) and untreated groups (P = .012). Objective response was observed in 3 of 32 patients (9.4%) who received therapy post-EV., Conclusion: Outcomes of patients with mUC following discontinuation of EV are dismal and only 51% received therapy after discontinuation of EV. This study identifies benchmarks for the interpretation of activity of new agents following EV and raises the hypothesis for duration of EV as a potential prognostic factor following discontinuation of EV., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The renin-angiotensin system is involved in the regulation of angiogenesis and cell proliferation. Angiotensin inhibition may improve drug delivery by enhancing tumor perfusion partly by downregulating transforming growth factor (TGF)-β. Because TGF-β is associated with resistance in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receiving programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD1/L1) inhibitors, we hypothesized that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may enhance the outcomes of patients with mUC who receive PD1/L1 inhibitors., Patients and Methods: Data from patients with mUC who received PD1/L1 inhibitors as monotherapy were obtained; patients from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute constituted the discovery dataset, and data from Moffitt Cancer Center served as the validation dataset. A logistic regression investigated the impact of concurrent ACEI/ARB primarily on any regression of tumor (ART) after controlling for prognostic factors., Results: Data were available for 178 patients from the discovery dataset, of whom 153 (86%) had received prior platinum and 33 (18.5%) concurrent ACEIs/ARBs. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that ACEIs/ARBs were associated with greater probability of ART (odds ratio [OR] = 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-6.30; P = .022). In the validation dataset, 101 patients were available, of whom 59 (58.4%) had received prior platinum and 22 (21.8%) concurrent ACEIs/ARBs. ACEI/ARB demonstrated a trend for association with ART (OR = 3.28; 95% CI, 0.98-10.99; P = .054) on multivariable analysis of the validation dataset., Conclusions: Concurrent angiotensin blockade was associated with a higher rate of tumor regression in patients with mUC receiving PD1/L1 inhibitors. Validation is warranted in a prospective trial, especially given the cost efficacy of ACEIs/ARBs., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Characterization of the different genomic alterations (GAs) in urothelial carcinoma (UC), by site of origin, may identify contrasting therapeutic opportunities and inform distinct putative pathogenetic mechanisms., Objective: To describe the genomic landscape of UC based on the anatomic site of the primary tumor., Design, Setting, and Participants: In total, 479 upper tract UC (UTUC) and 1984 bladder UC (BUC) patients underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to evaluate all classes of GAs, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Targetable GAs and signatures were assessed according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT)., Intervention: Hybrid-capture-based CGP., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analyses and differences between anatomic subgroups were reported., Results and Limitations: In total, 39% of patients with UC harbored one or more tier 1-2 GAs, suggesting potential benefit from approved or investigational therapies. UTUC cases were enriched in FGFR3 short variant (SV) GA (20% vs 13%) and HRAS SV GA (7.3% vs 3%), the latter attributed specifically to enrichment in renal pelvis UC (9.5%) versus ureteral UC (1.8%, p=0.002). RB1 GAs were more frequent in BUC than in UTUC (21% vs 7.8% p<0.001). Non-FGFR3 kinase fusions were observed in 1% of patients, including BRAF/RAF1 fusions in 0.5%. BRAF mutations/fusions were observed in 2% of cases and were mutually exclusive with FGFR3 GA (p=0.002). There were no differences of TMB high/MSI high for primary tumor and metastatic sites, but UTUC was enriched for MSI high (3.4%) relative to BUC (0.8%, p<0.001)., Conclusions: Differences in the genomic landscapes of UTUC and BUC were modest; however, patients with UTUC were enriched for FGFR3 and HRAS SV relative to BUC. Further investigation on UC, stratified by the site of origin, is warranted. In addition, these results suggest an opportunity for the routine incorporation of CGP prior to systemic therapy initiation in metastatic UC., Patient Summary: Genomic profiling of advanced urothelial carcinoma can inform several therapeutic opportunities for patients, particularly those with upper tract urothelial carcinoma, an infrequent and generally aggressive tumor entity with nonoverlapping clinical features compared with its bladder counterpart, which is often treated based on the data extrapolated from bladder cancer., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: PD1/L1 inhibitors are approved by FDA as first-line therapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are cisplatin-ineligible with high tumor PD-L1 expression or are platinum-ineligible regardless of PD-L1 expression. However, the outcomes when employing PD1/L1 inhibitors for platinum-ineligible patients are unclear. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of first-line PD1/L1 inhibitors in patients with aUC deemed to be platinum-ineligible., Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from 8 academic institutions. The following criteria were used to define platinum ineligibility: creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 30 mL/min; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 3; CrCl 30 to 59 mL/min and ECOG PS 2; elderly and/or comorbidities. Patient characteristics, responses and treatment-related toxicities were identified. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression analysis was conducted to explore the association of baseline variables with response and survival., Results: A total of 79 platinum-ineligible patients with aUC were eligible. Patients were treated with atezolizumab (51.9%), pembrolizumab (35.5%), nivolumab (8.9%), or durvalumab (3.8%). The objective response rate was 27.9%. The median overall survival was 45 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 32-80), and the median treatment failure-free survival was 16 weeks (95% CI, 9-18). Treatment-related toxicity of any grade and grade ≥ 3 was seen in 41.8% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. Anemia and liver metastasis were associated with worse survival., Conclusion: The efficacy of first-line PD1/L1 inhibitors for platinum-ineligible patients with aUC in the real world appears comparable to those reported in trials of unselected cisplatin-ineligible patients, whereas grade ≥ 3 toxicities appear more common. Further validation is required including data based on PD-L1 status and other biomarkers. Platinum-ineligible patients with aUC warrant evaluation of novel, safe, and effective agents., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line)., Results: Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed-histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively)., Conclusion: Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed-histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy., (© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in the first-line (1L) setting for cisplatin-unfit patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high tumors or for platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-unfit patients, response rates remain modest and outcomes vary with no clinically useful biomarkers (except for PD-L1)., Objective: We aimed to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving 1L ICIs for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) in a multicenter cohort study., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients treated with 1L ICIs for aUC across 24 institutions and five countries (in the USA and Europe) outside clinical trials were included in this study., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We used a stepwise, hypothesis-driven approach using clinician-selected covariates to develop a new risk score for patients receiving ICIs in the 1L setting. Demographics, clinicopathologic data, treatment patterns, and OS were collected uniformly. Univariate Cox regression was performed on 18 covariates hypothesized to be associated with OS based on published data. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis (MVA) if they correlated with OS (p < 0.2) and were included in the final model if p < 0.05 on MVA. Retained covariates were assigned points based on the beta coefficient to create a risk score. Stratified median OS and C-statistic were calculated., Results and Limitations: Among 984 patients, 357 with a mean age of 71 yr were included in the analysis, 27% were female, 68% had pure UC, and 13% had upper tract UC. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases were significant prognostic factors on MVA and were included in the risk score. C index for new 1L risk score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.71). Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of external validation., Conclusions: We developed a new 1L ICI risk score for OS based on data from patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the USA and Europe outside of clinical trials. The score components highlight readily available factors related to tumor biology and treatment response. External validation is being pursued., Patient Summary: With multiple new treatments under development and approved for advanced urothelial carcinoma, it can be difficult to identify the best treatment sequence for each patient. The risk score may help inform treatment discussions and estimate outcomes in patients treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, while it can also impact clinical trial design and endpoints. TAKE  HOME MESSAGE: A new risk score was developed for advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. The score assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases each one point, with a higher score being associated with worse overall survival., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains a fatal malignancy, despite the recent addition of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs), an FGFR inhibitor and an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) to the therapeutic armamentarium. The survival rates are particularly dismal after first-line treatment failure, entailing an urgent need for more effective therapies. Advances in understanding biomarkers and identifying targetable molecules have broadened the pathways under investigation in mUC., Areas Covered: This review summarizes mUC salvage therapy options, including chemotherapy, ICI, and novel promising agents, including targeted therapies, ADCs, cytotoxic agents and vaccines. For the literature review, a PubMed search and relevant data presented at international conferences were used., Expert Opinion: The approval of ICIs, FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib and ADC enfortumab vedotin in the salvage setting has transformed the mUC landscape. Yet there are additional promising agents currently under study. Toxicities are observed with ADCs and FGFR inhibitors, but appear manageable in most patients. The molecular heterogeneity and complex tumor biology are challenging barriers for progress in the therapy of mUC. Advances in molecular profiling, defining validated predictive markers, rational combinations of agents and therapeutically actionable targets will help develop personalized compounds with higher efficacy and less toxicity with hopes to improve outcomes for mUC.

Purpose: Current first line treatment options in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma unfit to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy include PD-1/L1 inhibitors and carboplatin containing chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of these therapies remains unclear., Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis. Consecutive cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line carboplatin containing chemotherapy followed sequentially by second line PD-1/L1 inhibitor, or the reverse order, were included. Patient demographics, objective response, time to treatment failure for first line and second line therapy, interval between end of first line and initiation of second line treatment (Interval 1L-2L ) and overall survival were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the association of sequencing on overall survival., Results: In this multicenter retrospective study we identified 146 cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with first line PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy followed by second line carboplatin containing chemotherapy (group 1, 43) or the reverse sequence (group 2, 103). In the overall cohort median age was 72, 76% were men and 18% had liver metastasis. In both groups objective response rates were higher with carboplatin containing chemotherapy (45.6% first line, 44.2% second line) compared to PD-1/L1 inhibitors (9.3% first line, 21.3% second line). On multivariate analysis treatment sequence was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.05, p=0.85). Site of metastasis was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival (p=0.002)., Conclusions: In this biomarker unselected cohort of cisplatin ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, PD-1/L1 inhibitor followed by carboplatin containing chemotherapy and the reverse sequence had comparable overall survival.

Purpose: A prognostic model for overall survival of post-platinum patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is necessary as existing models were constructed in the chemotherapy setting., Materials and Methods: Patient level data were used from phase I/II trials evaluating PD-L1 inhibitors following platinum based chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The derivation data set consisted of 2 phase I/II trials evaluating atezolizumab (405). Two phase I/II trials that evaluated avelumab (242) and durvalumab (198) comprised the validation data sets. Cox regression analyses evaluated the association of candidate prognostic factors with overall survival. Stepwise selection was used to select an optimal model using the derivation data set. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in the avelumab and durvalumab data sets., Results: The 5 prognostic factors identified in the optimal model using the atezolizumab derivation data set were ECOG-PS (1 vs 0, HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.36-2.36), liver metastasis (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.20-2.00), platelet count (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.54-3.18), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.57-2.40) and lactate dehydrogenase (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-1.99). There was robust discrimination of survival between low, intermediate and high risk groups. The c-statistic was 0.692 in the derivation and 0.671 and 0.773 in the avelumab and durvalumab validation data sets, respectively. A web based interactive tool was developed to calculate the expected survival probabilities based on risk factors., Conclusions: A validated 5-factor model has satisfactory prognostic performance for survival across 3 PD-L1 inhibitors to treat metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy and may assist in stratification, interpreting and designing trials incorporating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the post-platinum setting.

Cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) can be used for noninvasive profiling of tumor genomic aberrations. We hypothesized that molecular alterations may inform prognostication in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). We evaluated 124 aUC patients who underwent cfDNA analysis using a 73-gene sequencing panel (Guardant360). The association of molecular alterations and clinical factors with overall survival (OS) and failure-free-survival (FFS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression. The median age was 72yr, and 65 patients (52.4%) received prior therapy with platinum, 21 (17.1%) with a taxane, and ten (8.1%) with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. At least one genomic alteration was detected in 112 patients (90.3%). The median number of alterations per sample was four (range 0-80). Commonly altered genes included TP53 (54.8%), PIK3CA (24.2%), ARID1A (22.6%), ERBB2 (19.4%), EGFR (16.1%), NF1 (13.7%), RB1 (12.9%), FGFR3 (11.3%), BRAF (10.5%), BRCA1 (10.5%), and RAF1 (8.9%). BRCA1 and RAF1 alterations were associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.48; p=0.07; HR 4.87; p=0.007) and FFS (HR 2.35; p=0.016; HR 2.40; p=0.047). Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and the presence of visceral metastasis were associated with shorter OS; genomic evolution was observed. In conclusion, cfDNA molecular alterations were detected in most aUC patients. BRCA1 and RAF1 alterations were negatively prognostic, supporting further evaluation of DNA damage response and RAF kinase inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Noninvasive testing of cell-free circulating DNA in advanced urothelial carcinoma identifies clinically relevant molecular aberrations. Alterations in BRCA1 and RAF1 genes appear to be negatively associated with clinical outcomes, supporting further study of DNA damage response and RAF kinase inhibitors in selected patients., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Reliable biomarkers to predict the response of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) to programmed death-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors are being investigated. Texture analysis represents tumor heterogeneity and may serve as a predictor of response in mUC., Objective: To assess the predictive ability of computed tomography (CT) texture analysis for progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mUC treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors., Design, Setting, and Participants: Forty-two postplatinum patients with mUC treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors from 2013 to 2018, including those with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 who had contrast-enhanced baseline or first follow-up CT within 3mo after starting treatment, were included. PFS was calculated based on serial follow-up CT scans. Eleven patients with follow-up of <12mo without progression were excluded. Texture features of measurable lesions on baseline and first follow-up CT were extracted using commercially available software (TexRAD; Feedback Plc, Cambridge, UK) using different spatial scaling factors (0, 2-6)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Stepwise logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify patients with PFS <12mo, and performance was assessed using receiver operator characteristic curves., Results and Limitations: Of 31 included patients, 18 had PFS <12mo. Twenty-five baseline CT and 29 first follow-up CT scans met the inclusion criteria. In patients with PFS <12mo, entropy and mean were higher on first follow-up CT (p=0.02 and p=0.005, respectively). A predictive model including mean and entropy on first follow-up CT yielded 95% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 90% positive predictive value, 89% negative predictive value, and 90% accuracy (area under the curve=0.963) to identify patients with PFS <12mo. Limitations include retrospective nature and small sample size., Conclusions: CT texture analysis can help predict early progression with high accuracy soon after starting PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Studies investigating the correlation of texture analysis with survival endpoints may help validate texture analysis as a biomarker of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors' treatment response., Patient Summary: Computed tomography texture analysis can help predict durability of response in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer early during treatment with programmed death-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is generally a highly aggressive malignancy with early and mostly distant recurrences. Cisplatin-based combinations have been established as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC) providing overall survival as well as disease-free survival benefit. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and are being tested in the neoadjuvant setting as well., Areas Covered: This review covers the existing guidelines for the management of MIBC. It summarizes the use of different NAC regimens. It also discusses the published literature of ICIs in this setting and explores future perspectives., Expert Opinion: Cisplatin-based NAC is the standard of care in MIBC prior to RC. Cisplatin-ineligible MIBC patients have not demonstrated to clearly benefit from a chemotherapy regimen and proceed directly to RC, although novel agents have been evaluated in this setting. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab as monotherapy have shown feasibility and promising pathologic response rates. The combination of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with ICIs and chemotherapy-free ICI alone approaches are being investigated in randomized trials. Molecular subclassification and development of predictive biomarkers in MIBC will further help to identify optimal treatment strategies in these patients.

Background Muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) is characterized by substantial genetic heterogeneity and high mutational frequency. Correlation between frequently mutated genes with clinical behavior has been recently demonstrated. Nonetheless, correlation between mutational status of MIUC and metastatic pattern is unknown. Purpose To investigate the association of mutational status of MIUC with metastatic pattern, metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). Materials and Methods This single-center retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients with biopsy-proven MIUC who underwent serial cross-sectional imaging (CT, MRI, or fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT) between April 2010 and December 2018. Mutational status was correlated with location of metastases using the χ 2 or Fisher exact test. Mutational status and metastatic pattern were correlated with MFS and OS using univariable Cox proportional hazard models. High-risk (presence of TP53 , RB1 , or KDM6A mutation) and low-risk (presence of ARID1A , FGFR3 , PIK3CA , STAG2 , and/or TSC1 mutation and absence of TP53 , RB1 , or KDM6A mutation) groups were determined according to existing literature and were correlated with MFS and OS by using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Results One hundred three patients (mean age, 72 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; 81 men) were evaluated. Seventeen of 103 (16%) patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis; 38 of 103 (37%) developed metastatic disease at a median of 5.9 months (interquartile range, 0.8-28 months). TP53 mutation (seen in 58 of 103 patients, 56%) was associated with lymphadenopathy (relative risk [RR]: 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.4; P = .002) and osseous metastases (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.6, 2.3; P = .02); RB1 mutation (seen in 19 of 103 patients, 18.4%) was associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis (RR: 5.9; 95% CI: 3.8, 9.2; P = .03). ARID1A mutation was associated with greater OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2, 10; P = .01). At multivariable Cox analysis, the high-risk group ( TP53 , RB1 , and/or KDM6A mutations) was independently associated with shorter MFS (HR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.3, 12; P = .009) and shorter OS (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2, 10; P = .02). Conclusion Mutational status of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer has implications on metastatic pattern, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Choyke in this issue.

Background: In metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), predictive biomarkers that correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. Here, we interrogated genomic and clinical features associated with response to ICIs in mUC., Methods: Sixty two mUC patients treated with ICI who had targeted tumour sequencing were studied. We examined associations between candidate biomarkers and clinical benefit (CB, any objective reduction in tumour size) versus no clinical benefit (NCB, no change or objective increase in tumour size). Both univariable and multivariable analyses for associations were conducted. A comparator cohort of 39 mUC patients treated with taxanes was analysed by using the same methodology., Results: Nine clinical and seven genomic factors correlated with clinical outcomes in univariable analysis in the ICI cohort. Among the 16 factors, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 (OR = 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01-1.15), visceral metastasis (OR = 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.43) and single-nucleotide variant (SNV) count < 10 (OR = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.006-0.27) were identified as independent predictors of NCB to ICI in multivariable analysis (c-statistic = 0.90). None of the 16 variables were associated with clinical benefit in the taxane cohort., Conclusions: This three-factor model includes genomic (SNV count >9) and clinical (NLR <5, lack of visceral metastasis) variables predictive for benefit to ICI but not taxane therapy for mUC. External validation of these hypothesis-generating results is warranted to enable use in routine clinical care.

Introduction : The conventional management of most patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) is platinum-based chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy. Erdafitinib is an option in post-platinum patients with activating mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-3 and -2. Salvage therapy with taxanes or vinflunine has demonstrated minimal efficacy. Enfortumab Vedotin (EV), a monoclonal antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting nectin-4 is under investigation in patients with advanced UC. Areas covered : This review describes the epidemiology and unmet needs of patients with metastatic UC and is focused specifically on heavily treated patients. We explore the rationale for targeting nectin 4 and the clinical development of EV; efficacy and safety data from the completed phase I and II studies are examined. Ongoing trials to definitively assess clinical outcomes in comparison to current therapy and trials exploring EV in combination are also highlighted. Expert opinion : There is an unmet need for new therapies in most patients with advanced UC and who progress after platinum and immunotherapy. EV has shown promising efficacy and safety in this population in phase 1 and 2 trials including those with poor prognostic factors such as liver metastases. Ongoing trials exploring this agent in combination will continue to advance the treatment of UC.

Background: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in pure urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is established. Regarding variant histology, there is a gap in knowledge concerning the optimal treatment after radical cystectomy (RC). The objective of this study was to assess the effect of AC on overall survival (OS) in patients who had pure urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma with concomitant variant histology, or another pure variant histology., Methods: Within the National Cancer Data Base, 15,397 patients who underwent RC for nonmetastatic, localized carcinoma of the bladder and had positive lymph nodes (T2N+) or locally advanced stage (≥T3N0/N+) were identified, excluding those who had previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine the specific effect of AC on OS stratified by each distinct histologic subtype, including pure urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary or sarcomatoid differentiation, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumors. To account for immortal time bias, Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted with a landmark at 3 months., Results: In multivariable landmark analyses, AC compared with initial observation was associated with an OS benefit for patients who had pure urothelial carcinoma (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.91), whereas no differences were observed with regard to those who had variant histology., Conclusions: Multivariable Cox regression landmark analysis revealed a survival benefit from AC for patients with a pure urothelial carcinoma. However, a survival benefit of AC for patients who had urothelial carcinoma with concomitant variant histology or other pure variant histology was not demonstrated., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)