Search

Background: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival., Results: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group., Conclusions: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: The MORPHEUS platform was designed to identify early efficacy signals and evaluate the safety of novel immunotherapy combinations across cancer types. The phase Ib/II MORPHEUS-UC trial (NCT03869190) is evaluating atezolizumab plus magrolimab, niraparib, or tocilizumab in platinum-refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Additional treatment combinations were evaluated and will be reported separately., Patients and Methods: Patients had locally advanced or mUC that progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety and exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted., Results: Seventy-six patients were randomized to receive either atezolizumab plus magrolimab (n = 16), atezolizumab plus niraparib (n = 15), atezolizumab plus tocilizumab (n = 15), or atezolizumab monotherapy (control; n = 30). No additive benefit in ORR, PFS, or OS was seen in the treatment arms versus the control. The best confirmed ORR was 26.7% with atezolizumab plus magrolimab, 6.7% with atezolizumab plus niraparib, 20.0% with atezolizumab plus tocilizumab, and 27.6% with atezolizumab monotherapy. Overall, the treatment combinations were tolerable, and adverse events were consistent with each agent's known safety profile. Trends were observed for shrinkage of programmed death-ligand 1-positive tumors (atezolizumab, atezolizumab plus magrolimab, atezolizumab plus tocilizumab), inflamed tumors, or tumors with high mutational burden (atezolizumab), and immune excluded tumors (atezolizumab plus magrolimab)., Conclusions: The evaluated regimens in MORPHEUS-UC were tolerable. However, response rates for the combinations did not meet the criteria for further development in platinum-experienced locally advanced or mUC., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Bellmunt Risk Score, based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), hemoglobin levels and presence of liver metastases, is the most established prognostic algorithm for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, existing algorithms may not be sufficient following the introduction of immunotherapy. Our aim was to develop an improved prognostic model in patients receiving second-line atezolizumab for aUC., Methods: Patients with aUC progressing after cisplatin/carboplatin-based chemotherapy and enrolled in the prospective, single-arm, phase IIIb SAUL study were included in this analysis. Patients were treated with 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously. The development and internal validation of a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was performed using Cox regression analyses, bootstrapping methods and calibration., Results: In 936 patients, ECOG PS, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, liver metastases, bone metastases and time from last chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors. In a 4-tier model, median OS for patients with 0-1, 2, 3-4 and 5-7 risk factors was 18.6, 10.4, 4.8 and 2.1 months, respectively. Compared with Bellmunt Risk Score, this model provided enhanced prognostic separation, with a c-index of 0.725 vs 0.685 and increment in c-statistic of 0.04 (p<0.001). Inclusion of PD-L1 expression did not improve the model., Conclusions: We developed and internally validated a prognostic model for patients with aUC receiving postplatinum immunotherapy. This model represents an improvement over the Bellmunt algorithm and could aid selection of patients with aUC for second-line immunotherapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT02928406., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AB: Honoraria, advisory and research funding from Roche, BMS, MSD, Ipsen, Debiopharm, Basilea, Pierre Fabre and Janssen; and steering committee member for Roche. AM: Lectures/speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Janssen, Takeda, TEVA, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; consultant for AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSA Pharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer and Roche; research and clinical trials support from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSA Pharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer and Roche. YL: Personal fees from Roche, Janssen, Astellas, MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Seattle Genetics; grants from Janssen, MSD and Sanofi; non-financial support from Janssen, Roche, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. NJ: Consultancy from Merck, Roche and AstraZeneca; trial funding (to institution) from Merck, Roche and AstraZeneca. EC: Research grants from Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; consultancy from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Biocon, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm and Sanofi; and speakers fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. DC: Personal fees for advisory boards/speaker engagements from Roche, Janssen, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Boehringer Ingelheim. FL-R: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Thermo Fisher; and research funding from Lilly, Roche and Thermo Fisher. FC: Advisory role for BMS, MSD, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. MK: Honoraria/consultation for Bayer, BMS, Eusai, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; travel grants from Ipsen, Janssen, Merck and Novartis. GdV: Support for clinical trials and scientific projects for Pfizer, Roche and Ipsen; and speaker fees and consulting for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, EUSA Pharma and BMS. RZ: None. KT: None. CNS: Consultant for Pfizer, Merck, MSD, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche-Genentech, Incyte, BMS, Foundation Medicine, Immunomedics (now Gilead), Medscape, UroToday, CCO Clinical, Janssen and NCI., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The value of a complete response to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment for urothelial cancer is well recognised, but less is known about long-term outcomes in patients with a partial response or the benefit of achieving disease stabilisation., Objective: To determine clinical outcomes in patients with a partial response or stable disease on atezolizumab therapy for advanced urinary tract carcinoma (UTC)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were extracted from three prospective trials (IMvigor210 cohort 2, SAUL, and IMvigor211) evaluating single-agent atezolizumab therapy for platinum-pretreated advanced UTC. The analysis population included 604 atezolizumab-treated and 208 chemotherapy-treated patients (229 achieving a partial response and 583 achieving stable disease)., Intervention: Atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity or single-agent chemotherapy for patients in the control arm of IMvigor211., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, overall survival, duration of disease control. Partial response and stable disease populations were analysed separately., Results and Limitations: The population of patients with a partial response included more patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells than the stable disease population. The median time to best response was 2.1 mo across trials and treatments, regardless of the type of response. Atezolizumab-treated patients with a partial response had sustained disease control (median overall survival not reached); durations of disease control and overall survival were longer with atezolizumab than with chemotherapy. In patients with stable disease, median overall survival was numerically longer with atezolizumab (exceeding 1 yr) than with chemotherapy. Irrespective of treatment, durations of disease control and survival were shorter in patients with stable disease than in those achieving a partial response. These analyses are limited by their post hoc exploratory nature and relatively short follow-up., Conclusions: Stable disease and partial response are meaningful clinical outcomes in atezolizumab-treated patients with advanced UTC., Patient Summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes in patients whose tumours responded to treatment to some extent, but the tumour did not disappear completely. We aimed to understand whether a modest response to treatment was associated with meaningful long-term outcomes for patients. We found that on average, life expectancy was >1 yr in patients whose disease was stabilised and even longer in those whose tumours showed some shrinkage in response to treatment., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment., Methods: We conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively)., Conclusions: Enfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24., Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury)., Interpretation: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) are typically excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and there are limited data on outcomes in this population. The single-arm international SAUL study of atezolizumab enrolled a broader 'real-world' patient population. We present outcomes in patients with a history of AID., Methods: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was safety. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end-point. Subgroup analyses of AID patients were prespecified., Results: Thirty-five of 997 treated patients had AID at baseline, most commonly psoriasis (n = 15). Compared with non-AID patients, AID patients experienced numerically more adverse events (AEs) of special interest (46% versus 30%; grade ≥3 14% versus 6%) and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (26% versus 12%), but without relevant increases in treatment-related deaths (0% versus 1%) or AEs necessitating treatment discontinuation (9% versus 6%). Pre-existing AID worsened in four patients (11%; two flares in two patients); three of the six flares resolved, one was resolving, and two were unresolved. Efficacy was similar in AID and non-AID patients (median OS, 8.2 versus 8.8 months, respectively; median progression-free survival, 4.4 versus 2.2 months; disease control rate, 51% versus 39%)., Conclusions: In 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with pre-existing AID, incidences of special- interest and treatment-related AEs appeared acceptable. AEs were manageable, rarely requiring atezolizumab discontinuation. Treating these patients requires caution, but pre-existing AID does not preclude atezolizumab therapy., Trial Registration: NCT02928406., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Y.L. reports a grant and non-financial support from Roche for the SAUL study and funding of editorial support, a grant from Celsius, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Janssen and MSD and personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Seattle Genetics and Pfizer. C.N.S. reports consultancy for Pfizer, MSD, Merck, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche/Genentech and Incyte. D.C. reports research funding to his institution from Janssen Oncology; adviser/consultancy to Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Boehringer Ingelheim; travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca Spain. S.F.O. reports research grants to institution from Celldex and Novartis. H.D. reports travel/accommodation/expenses from Astellas, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Ipsen, MSD and Janssen-Cilag. R.H. reports grants and personal fees from MSD; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from Nektar and Janssen; personal fees from Bayer, BMS and NICE; partnership in Cancer Centre London. K.V. reports adviser/consultancy to Lilly, Novartis, Bayer and Pfizer; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly and BMS. T.A.G. reports adviser/consultancy to BMS, MSD, Roche, Astellas, Ipsen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eisai, Bayer; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Pfizer, Ipsen, Janssen and Astellas; research grant/funding to institution from Roche, Ipsen and Pfizer; travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme and Ipsen. I.S. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche. A.P.F. reports research grants from Roche, personal fees from BMS, Roche, Novartis, Janssen, Astellas, Merck and AstraZeneca and non-financial support from BMS, Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Merck, Ipsen and AstraZeneca. B.B. reports personal fees for adviser/consultant roles from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Swixx BioPharma and Ipsen, travel/accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Bausch Health and Ipsen and non-financial support for adviser/consultant roles from GSK. P.M. reports adviser/consultancy to Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer and BMS; research grant/funding to institution from Roche. S.F. works for Roche (under contract via Hayes Schweiz AG). F.Di.N. reports employment with Roche/Genentech; share/stockholder of Roche/Genentech. S.de.D. reports employment with F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; shareholder of F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. E.C. reports personal fees from Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Gilead, AbbVie, R-Pharm, SynAct Pharma and ObsEva and research grants from Chugai Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Biogen and Bio-Cancer. F.N. and F.M. declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The phase II single-arm KEYNOTE-052 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Patients and Methods: Three hundred seventy patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 24 months. Positive tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was defined as combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. Response was assessed by independent central review every 9 weeks per RECIST v1.1. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR)., Results: At data cutoff (September 26, 2018), the minimum follow-up was 2 years since the last patient enrolled. ORR was 28.6% (95% CI, 24.1% to 33.5%); 33 patients (8.9%) and 73 patients (19.7%) achieved complete and partial response, respectively. The median duration of response was 30.1 months (95% CI, 18.1 months to not reached [NR]); responses lasted ≥ 12 and ≥ 24 months in 67% and 52% of patients, respectively. Forty patients with complete or partial response completed 2 years of study treatment, and 32 had ongoing response at completion. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7 to 13.1 months), and 12- and 24-month OS rates were 46.9% and 31.2%, respectively. In patients with CPS ≥ 10, ORR was 47.3% (95% CI, 37.7% to 57.0%) and median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 28.5 months). In patients with lymph node-only disease, ORR was 49.0% (95% CI, 34.8% to 63.4%), and median OS was 27.0 months (12.4 months to NR). There were no new safety signals., Conclusion: First-line pembrolizumab confers meaningful and durable clinical response in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced UC and is associated with prolonged OS, particularly with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and lymph node-only disease.

Background: Patients with treatment-naive advanced urothelial cancer (UC) ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy are typically older and have comorbidities, representing a difficult-to-treat population., Objective: To evaluate the safety and antitumor activity of first-line pembrolizumab in subgroups of cisplatin-ineligible older patients (aged ≥65 and ≥75 yr) with advanced UC in KEYNOTE-052 (NCT02335424), including those with poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 2 [ECOG PS2])., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were cisplatin ineligible, had treatment-naive, histologically/cytologically confirmed, locally advanced/metastatic UC with measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 [RECIST v1.1]), and had ECOG PS0-2. Patient subgroups analyzed were aged ≥65yr (n = 302), ≥75 yr (n = 179), ≥65yr with ECOG PS2 (≥65yr+ECOG PS2; n = 119), and ≥75 yr+ECOG PS2 (n = 78)., Intervention: All patients received pembrolizumab 200mg intravenously every 3 wk until confirmed progression, intolerable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or 24 mo of therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1. The key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and safety., Results and Limitations: ORRs for the ≥65yr, ≥75 yr, ≥65yr+ECOG PS2, and ≥75 yr+ECOG PS2 subgroups were 29%, 27%, 29%, and 31%, respectively; rates of complete and partial responses were similar across subgroups (9%, 5%, 6%, and 6%, and 20%, 22%, 23%, and 24%, respectively). Median DOR and OS were also consistent across the ≥65yr and ≥65yr+ECOG PS2 subgroups and the ≥75 yr and ≥75 yr+ECOG PS2 subgroups. Study limitations included open-label design, lack of a comparator group, and nature of post hoc exploratory analysis., Conclusions: The clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced UC appeared to be consistent regardless of age and/or poor performance status., Patient Summary: This study looked at whether older age and poorer performance status affect how well patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial cancer ineligible for standard-of-care treatment respond to pembrolizumab. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were not affected by older age or poorer performance status, making it an effective option., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce., Objective: To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017., Intervention: Post-PD management as per standard practice., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model., Results and Limitations: A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.51, p <  0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.36, p <  0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0-8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9-3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p =  0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p =  0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p =  0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p =  0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p <  0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis., Conclusions: Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy PATIENT SUMMARY: Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist-plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (60 mg/m 2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues., Findings: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5-13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3-4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6-2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573-0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9-11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0-9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724-1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group., Interpretation: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Antibodies targeting PD-1 or its ligand 1 PD-L1 such as atezolizumab, have great efficacy in a proportion of metastatic urothelial cancers 1,2 . Biomarkers may facilitate identification of these responding tumors 3 . Neoadjuvant use of these agents is associated with pathological complete response in a spectrum of tumors, including urothelial cancer 4-7 . Sequential tissue sampling from these studies allowed for detailed on-treatment biomarker analysis. Here, we present a single-arm phase 2 study, investigating two cycles of atezolizumab before cystectomy in 95 patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02662309). Pathological complete response was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints focused on safety, relapse-free survival and biomarker analysis. The pathological complete response rate was 31% (95% confidence interval: 21-41%), achieving the primary efficacy endpoint. Baseline biomarkers showed that the presence of preexisting activated T cells was more prominent than expected and correlated with outcome. Other established biomarkers, such as tumor mutational burden, did not predict outcome, differentiating this from the metastatic setting. Dynamic changes to gene expression signatures and protein biomarkers occurred with therapy, whereas changes in DNA alterations with treatment were uncommon. Responding tumors showed predominant expression of genes related to tissue repair after treatment, making tumor biomarker interpretation challenging in this group. Stromal factors such as transforming growth factor-β and fibroblast activation protein were linked to resistance, as was high expression of cell cycle gene signatures after treatment.

Background: Vinflunine (VFL) is approved in Europe as second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer after failure of platinum-containing therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world data (RWD) to assess utilization, efficacy and safety of VFL., Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search for the period of 1/1/2000-31/8/2017. Full-length articles providing post-marketing RWD on VFL in patients failing previous chemotherapy were eligible. Interventional clinical trials were excluded., Results: Ten studies with 797 patients were identified. According to pooled REs analysis, overall response rate was 19%, most frequent, all-grade toxicities were fatigue (41%), constipation (39%), nausea/vomiting (25%), and most prevalent Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (13%), anaemia (9%), fatigue (8%). Median OS was comparable to results reported in recent randomized studies., Conclusion: Our findings confirm the efficacy and safety of VFL in an unselected population and support the use of VFL in the changing treatment paradigm of relapsed mUC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atezolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, is approved for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma. SAUL evaluated atezolizumab in a broader, pretreated population, including patients ineligible for the pivotal IMvigor211 phase 3 trial of atezolizumab., Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in an international real-world setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between November 2016 and March 2018 (median follow-up 12.7mo), 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma who experienced progression during or after one to three prior therapies for inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease were enrolled. Patients with renal impairment, treated central nervous system metastases, or stable controlled autoimmune disease were eligible; 10% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 and 98% were platinum pretreated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928406)., Intervention: Atezolizumab 1200mg every 3wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results and Limitations: The median treatment duration was 2.8mo (range 0-19); 22% remained on treatment and 8% discontinued because of toxicity. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 45% of patients. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, asthenia, colitis, and hypertension (each in 1%). Median OS was 8.7mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8-9.9). The 6-mo OS rate was 60% (95% CI 57-63%), median PFS was 2.2mo (95% CI 2.1-2.4), and the ORR was 13% (95% CI 11-16%; 3% complete responses). Among IMvigor211-like patients (excluding ECOG PS 2 and other IMvigor211 exclusion criteria), median OS was 10.0mo (95% CI 8.8-11.9) and 6-mo OS was 65% (95% CI 61-69%)., Conclusions: SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in a real-world pretreated population with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy overall and in the IMvigor211-like subgroup is consistent with previous pivotal anti-PD-L1/PD-1 urothelial carcinoma trials. These results support the use of atezolizumab in urinary tract carcinoma, including patients with limited treatment options., Patient Summary: In this international study we investigated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab treatment for advanced urinary tract cancer in a large population of pretreated patients, including those who would not normally be candidates for clinical trials. Patients tolerated the treatment well, even if they had autoimmune disease, were being treated with corticosteroids, or had disease that had spread to their brain. Life expectancy in this study for patients typical of everyday clinical practice was similar to that seen in trials that enrolled only selected fitter patients., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population., Methods: We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 , paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 , or 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% [IC0] or 1% to <5% [IC1] of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells [IC2/3]), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807., Findings: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6-15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4-12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63-1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6-13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26-1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients)., Interpretation: Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: More than half of all patients with advanced urothelial cancer cannot receive standard, first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy because of renal dysfunction, poor performance status, or other comorbidities. We assessed the activity and safety of first-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer., Methods: In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study (KEYNOTE-052), cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial cancer who had not been previously treated with systemic chemotherapy were recruited from 91 academic medical centres in 20 countries. Enrolled patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response (the proportion of patients who achieved complete or partial response) in all patients and by PD-L1 expression status according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, as assessed by independent central review. PD-L1 expression was assessed in tumour and inflammatory cells from tumour biopsies provided at study entry. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (all-patients-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02335424, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 24, 2015, and Aug 8, 2016, 374 patients were enrolled and 370 patients received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. 89 (24%, 95% CI 20-29) of 370 patients had a centrally assessed objective response, and as of Sept 1, 2016 (data cutoff), 74 (83%) of 89 responses were ongoing. Median follow-up was 5 months (IQR 3·0-8·6). A PD-L1-expression cutoff of 10% was associated with a higher frequency of response to pembrolizumab; 42 (38%, 95% CI 29-48) of 110 patients with a combined positive score of 10% or more had a centrally assessed objective response. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (eight [2%] of 370 patients), alkaline phosphatase increase (five [1%]), colitis, and muscle weakness (both four [1%]). 36 (10%) of 370 patients had a serious treatment-related adverse event. 17 (5%) of 370 patients died from non-treatment-related adverse events associated with death, and one patient died from treatment-related adverse events (myositis in addition to grade 3 thyroiditis, grade 3 hepatitis, grade 3 pneumonia, and grade 4 myocarditis)., Interpretation: First-line pembrolizumab has antitumour activity and acceptable tolerability in cisplatin-ineligible patients with urothelial cancer, most of whom were elderly, had poor prognostic factors, or had serious comorbidities. In view of this result, pembrolizumab has become a new treatment option for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible or not suitable candidates for chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab in the first-line setting is being further assessed in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02335424)., Funding: Merck & Co., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Five-year survival of patients with inoperable, advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with the first-line chemotherapy is 5%-15%. We assessed whether the Hsp27 inhibitor apatorsen combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) could improve overall survival (OS) in these patients., Patients and Methods: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II trial randomized 183 untreated urothelial carcinoma patients (North America and Europe) to receive GC plus either placebo (N = 62), 600 mg apatorsen (N = 60), or 1000 mg apatorsen (N = 61). In the experimental arm, treatment included loading doses of apatorsen followed by up to six cycles of apatorsen plus GC. Patients receiving at least four cycles could continue apatorsen monotherapy as maintenance until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was OS., Results: OS was not significantly improved in the single or combined 600- or 1000-mg apatorsen arms versus placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86 and 0.90, respectively]. Exploratory study of specific statistical modeling showed a trend for improved survival in patients with baseline poor prognostic features treated with 600 mg apatorsen compared with placebo (HR = 0.72). Landmark analysis of serum Hsp27 (sHsp27) levels showed a trend toward survival benefit for poor-prognosis patients in 600- and 1000-mg apatorsen arms who achieved lower area under the curve sHsp27 levels, compared with the placebo arm (HR = 0.45 and 0.62, respectively). Higher baseline circulating tumor cells (≥5 cells/7.5 ml) was observed in patients with poor prognosis in correlation with poor survival. Treatment-emergent adverse events were manageable and more common in both apatorsen-treatment arms., Conclusions: Even though apatorsen combined with standard chemotherapy did not demonstrate a survival benefit in the overall study population, patients with poor prognostic features might benefit from this combination. Serum Hsp27 levels may act as a biomarker to predict treatment outcome. Further exploration of apatorsen in poor-risk patients is warranted., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Maintenance therapy improves outcomes in various tumour types, but cumulative toxic effects limit the choice of drugs. We investigated whether maintenance therapy with vinflunine would delay disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had achieved disease control with first-line chemotherapy., Methods: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial in 21 Spanish hospitals. Eligible patients had locally advanced, surgically unresectable, or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract, adequate organ function, and disease control after four to six cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine (carboplatin allowed after cycle four). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive vinflunine or best supportive care until disease progression. We initially used block randomisation with a block size of six. Four lists were created for the two stratification factors of starting dose of vinflunine and presence of liver metastases. After a protocol amendment, number of cisplatin and gemcitabine cycles was added as a stratification factor, and eight lists were created, still with a block size of six. Finally, we changed to a minimisation procedure to reduce the risk of imbalance between groups. Vinflunine was given every 21 days as a 20 min intravenous infusion at 320 mg/m 2 or at 280 mg/m 2 in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1, age 75 years or older, previous pelvic radiotherapy, or creatinine clearance lower than 60 mL/min. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival longer than 5·3 months in the vinflunine group, assessed by modified intention to treat. Comparison of progression-free survival between treatment groups was a secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01529411., Findings: Between April 12, 2012, and Jan 29, 2015, we enrolled 88 patients, of whom 45 were assigned to receive vinflunine and 43 to receive best supportive care. One patient from the vinflunine group was lost to follow-up immediately after randomisation and was excluded from the analyses. One patient in the best supportive care group became ineligible for the study and did not receive treatment due to a delay in enrolment, but was included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 15·6 months (IQR 8·5-26·0), 29 (66%) of 44 patients in the vinflunine group had disease progression and 24 (55%) had died, compared with 36 (84%) of 43 patients with disease progression and 32 (74%) deaths in the best supportive care group. Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 2·0-11·1) in the vinflunine group and 4·2 months (2·1-6·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96, p=0·031). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 in the vinflunine group vs none of 42 in the best supportive care group), asthenia or fatigue (seven [16%] vs one [2%]), and constipation (six [14%] vs none). 18 serious adverse events were reported in the vinflunine group and 14 in the best supportive care group. One patient in the vinflunine group died from pneumonia that was deemed to be treatment related., Interpretation: In patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy, progression-free survival exceeded the acceptable threshold with vinflunine maintenance therapy. Moreover, progression-free survival was longer with vinflunine maintenance therapy than with best supportive care. Vinflunine maintenance had an acceptable safety profile. Further studies of the role of vinflunine are warranted., Funding: Pierre-Fabre Médicament., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population., Methods: For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652., Findings: Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A strong rationale supports the role of antiangiogenic drugs in urothelial cancer. This trial was designed to assess the activity of sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer ineligible for cisplatin and to explore molecular and imaging variables predictive of clinical benefit., Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter phase II trial with sunitinib 50 mg daily in 4/2-week schedule. Eligibility criteria were as follows: creatinine clearance 30-60 ml/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Pperformance Sstatus of one or less, and adequate hepatic and hematologic function. Twelve circulating cytokines were evaluated at baseline and sequentially using Luminex xMAP(®) (Austin, TX). Baseline and treatment-related changes in perfusion were evaluated in a patient subgroup using contrast-enhanced computed tomography., Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 38 patients showed 3 (8%) partial responses (PRs) and 19 (50%) presented with stable disease (SD), 17 (45%) of them ≥3 months. Clinical benefit (PR + SD) was 58%. Median time to progression (TTP) was 4.8 months and median overall survival 8.1 months. Toxicity was consistent with previous reports for sunitinib. Low interleukin-8 (IL-8) baseline levels were significantly associated with increased TTP. Baseline tumor contrast enhancement with >40 Hounsfield units was associated with clinical benefit., Conclusions: This study highlights the potential role of the angiogenic pathway as a therapy target in urothelial cancer. Baseline IL-8 serum levels and contrast enhancement of lesions warrant further study.