Search

Purpose This post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted to monitor the usage of axitinib (Inlyta) in clinical practice of Korean patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with disease progression during or after a prior systemic therapy in real world.Materials and Methods In this multicenter, observational study, patients indicated for oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily as second-line therapy for advanced RCC were followed up under routine clinical practices, and their safety and effectiveness outcomes were collected.Results Between 2012 and 2021, 125 patients were enrolled, and data from 111 patients were analyzed. Median age was 65 years (range, 30 to 84 years), 81% was male, and 110 (99%) had clear cell RCC. The median daily dose of axitinib was 10 mg (range, 4.36 to 15.95 mg) with a median administration period of 5.6 months (range, 15 to 750 days). Eighty-three percentage of patients experienced any grade of adverse events, 71% of which were related to study treatment, including diarrhea (36%), hypertension (21%), stomatitis (17%), decreased appetite (14%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (12%), and asthenia (11%). Most adverse events were generally well tolerated and manageable, with 13% of grade ≥ 3. Axitinib dose reduction was required in 20% of the adverse events and discontinuation in 8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 18.9). Objective responses were observed in 30% of patients (95% CI, 21 to 39) with 4% of complete response and 26% of partial response.Conclusion No new safety signal was found in the present PMS study of Korean RCC patients. Axitinib showed consistent outcomes in terms of effectiveness and safety confirming that the drug is a valid option for second-line therapy in patients with advanced RCC in a real-world setting.

PURPOSE Rogaratinib, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR1-4) inhibitor, showed promising phase I efficacy and safety in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) with FGFR1-3 mRNA overexpression. We assessed rogaratinib efficacy and safety versus chemotherapy in patients with FGFR mRNA-positive advanced/metastatic UC previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. METHODS FORT-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03410693 ) was a phase II/III, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with FGFR1/ 3 mRNA-positive locally advanced or metastatic UC with ≥ 1 prior platinum-containing regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) to rogaratinib (800 mg orally twice daily, 3-week cycles; n = 87) or chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 88). The primary end point was overall survival, with objective response rate (ORR) analysis planned following phase II accrual. Because of comparable efficacy between treatments, enrollment was stopped before progression to phase III; a full interim analysis of phase II was completed. RESULTS ORRs were 20.7% (rogaratinib, 18/87; 95% CI, 12.7 to 30.7) and 19.3% (chemotherapy, 17/88; 95% CI, 11.7 to 29.1). Median overall survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not estimable) and 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.8 to not estimable; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.72; P = .67). Grade 3/4 events occurred in 37 (43.0%)/4 (4.7%) patients and 32 (39.0%)/15 (18.3%), respectively. No rogaratinib-related deaths occurred. Exploratory analysis of patients with FGFR3 DNA alterations showed ORRs of 52.4% (11/21; 95% CI, 29.8 to 74.3) for rogaratinib and 26.7% (4/15; 95% CI, 7.8 to 55.1) for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, these are the first data to compare FGFR-directed therapy with chemotherapy in patients with FGFR-altered UC, showing comparable efficacy and manageable safety. Exploratory testing suggested FGFR3 DNA alterations in association with FGFR1/ 3 mRNA overexpression may be better predictors of rogaratinib response.

Background Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). Patients and Methods HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor–targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments—FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L—which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. Conclusions Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

Adrenocortical carcinoma, a rare malignancy, has a poor prognosis, and the treatment modalities have not been well established. This study aimed to analyze the trend of treatment modalities and outcomes of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma.We retrospectively analyzed 94 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma between January 1995 and June 2020 for distributions according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, the yearly trend of demographic features, differences in multidisciplinary treatment, and prognostic outcomes. Multidisciplinary treatment included any combination of treatment including surgery, mitotane, chemotherapy or radiation.The mean age and tumor size were 48.9 years and 11.7 cm, respectively. Fifteen patients (16.0%) underwent surgery only, and 56 (59.6%) underwent surgery with additional multidisciplinary treatments. Initial curative treatment was performed in all patients with stage 1 (n=5), 33 patients with stage 2 (n=34, 97.1%), 12 patients with stage 3 (n=19, 63.2%), and 11 patients with stage 4 (n=36, 30.6%) (P0.0001). Two patients (40.0%) with stage 1 presented recurrence. In stages 2, 3, and 4, 57.6%, 58.3%, and 90.9% of patients who received curative treatment had recurrences, respectively. The annual trend presented statistical differences in mitotane use that have been increasing recently (P0.0001).Overall distribution of adrenocortical carcinoma stage was similar throughout the years. Although the rate of mitotane use in the treatment of patients with Adrenocortical carcinoma has increased over time, recurrences were common even after multidisciplinary curative treatment in all stages. The treatment effect and prognostic outcomes presented no promising progression even with adjuvant chemotherapy and mitotane use in addition to surgical treatment. Adrenocortical carcinoma still presented an extremely poor prognosis, and further prospective studies are needed.

Programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have shown activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Data on the activity of these agents in patients with non–clear cell RCC (nccRCC) or patients with sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation are limited. In this multicenter analysis, we explored the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with nccRCC or sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation. Baseline and follow-up demographic, clinical, treatment, and radiographic data were collected. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary endpoints include time-to-treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and biomarker correlates. Forty-three patients were included: papillary (n = 14; 33%), chromophobe (n = 10; 23%), unclassified (n = 9; 21%), translocation (n = 3; 7%), and ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation (n = 7, 16%). Of those 43 patients, 11 patients (26%) had sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation (n = 7 with ccRCC; n = 4 nccRCC). Overall, 8 patients (19%) objectively responded, including 4 patients (13%) who received PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Responses were observed in patients with ccRCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation (n = 3/7, 43%), translocation RCC (n = 1/3, 33%), and papillary RCC (n = 4/14, 29%). The median TTF was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8–5.5] and median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI, 7.4–not reached). No specific genomic alteration was associated with clinical benefit. Modest antitumor activity for PD-1/PD-L1–blocking agents was observed in some patients with nccRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in this heterogeneous patient population. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(7); 758–65. ©2018 AACR.

Includes: Table 1S. Baseline patient and disease characteristics. Table 2S. Tumor mutation burden status. Table 3S. PDL1 expression data. Figure 1S. Overall survival for the total cohort.

Purpose:In an exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), tumor mutational burden (TMB), T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP), and stromal signature with outcomes of pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma (UC).Patients and Methods:Patients with advanced UC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in the single-arm phase II KEYNOTE-052 trial (NCT02335424) and salvage pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel/vinflunine) in the randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial (NCT02256436). The association of each biomarker (continuous variable) with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using logistic regression (ORR) and Cox PH (PFS, OS), adjusted for ECOG PS; nominal P values were calculated without multiplicity adjustment (one-sided, pembrolizumab; two-sided, chemotherapy). Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05.Results:In KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1, TMB, and TcellinfGEP were significantly associated with improved outcomes; stromal signature was significantly associated with worse outcomes. In KEYNOTE-045, although findings for TMB and TcellinfGEP with pembrolizumab were consistent with those of KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1 was not significantly associated with improved outcomes, nor was stromal signature associated with worse outcomes with pembrolizumab; chemotherapy was not associated with outcomes in a consistent manner for any of the biomarkers. Hazard ratio (HR) estimates at prespecified cutoffs showed an advantage for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 or TMB, with a trend toward lower HRs in the combined positive score ≥10 and the TMB ≥175 mutation/exome subgroup. For TcellinfGEP, PFS and OS HRs were lower in the TcellinfGEP-nonlow subgroup regardless of treatment.Conclusions:Multiple biomarkers characterizing the tumor microenvironment may help predict response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in UC, and potential clinical utility of these biomarkers may be context-dependent.

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the prognosis of pathologically node-positive bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients, and the value of preoperative clinical evaluation for lymph node metastases.Materials and Methods Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by partial/radical cystectomy and had pathologically confirmed lymph node metastases between January 2007 and December 2019 were identified and analyzed.Results A total of 53 patients were included in the study. The median age was 61 years (range, 34 to 81 years) with males comprising 86.8%. Among the 52 patients with post-neoadjuvant/pre-operative computed tomography results, only 33 patients (63.5%) were considered positive for lymph node metastasis. Sixteen patients (30.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC group), and 37 patients did not (no AC group). With the median follow-up duration of 67.7 months, the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the median overall survival (OS) was 8.5 months and 16.2 months, respectively. The 2-year RFS and OS rates were 23.3% and 34.6%, respectively. RFS and OS did not differ between the AC group and no AC group (median RFS, 8.8 months vs. 6.8 months, p=0.772; median OS, 16.1 months vs. 16.3 months, p=0.479). Thirty-eight patients (71.7%) experienced recurrence. Distant metastases were the dominant pattern of failure in both the AC group (91.7%) and no AC group (76.9%).Conclusion Patients with lymph node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery showed high recurrence rates with limited survival outcomes. Little benefit was observed with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response (CR) rates in the immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced CR to the contemporary first-line therapies.Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), response-evaluable patients who received frontline IO-based combination therapy or TKI monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival (OS) were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1.A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7557 patients experienced CR to IO-based and TKI therapies, respectively (The CR rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced CR, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the IO-based cohort than in the TKI cohort. CR was an indicator of favourable OS.

Purpose: To construct a urologic cancer database using a standardized, reproducible method, and to assess preliminary characteristics of this cohort.Materials and Methods: Patients with prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers who were enrolled with diagnostic codes in the electronic medical record (EMR) at Asan Medical Center from 2007–2016 were included. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) was used to design the Asan Medical Center-Urologic Cancer Database (AMC-UCD). The process included developing a data dictionary, applying branching logic, mapping clinical data warehouse structures, alpha testing, clinical record summary testing, creating “standards of procedure,” importing data, and entering data. Descriptive statistics were used to identify rates of surgeries and numbers of patients.Results: Clinical variables (n=407) were selected to develop a data dictionary from REDCap. In total, 20,198 urologic cancer patients visited our institution from 2007–2016 (bladder cancer, 4,616; kidney cancer, 5,750; prostate cancer, 10,330). The overall numbers of patients and surgeries increased over time, with robotic surgeries rapidly growing over a decade. The most common treatment for urologic cancer was surgery, followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy.Conclusions: Using a standardized method, the AMC-UCD fosters multidisciplinary research. This constructed database provides access to clinical statistics to effectively assist research. Preliminary data should be refined through EMR chart review. The successful organization of data from 2007–2016 provides a framework for future periods of investigation and prospective models.

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.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.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.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.

Rogaratinib, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR1-4) inhibitor, showed promising phase I efficacy and safety in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) withFORT-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03410693) was a phase II/III, randomized, open-label trial. Patients withORRs were 20.7% (rogaratinib, 18/87; 95% CI, 12.7 to 30.7) and 19.3% (chemotherapy, 17/88; 95% CI, 11.7 to 29.1). Median overall survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not estimable) and 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.8 to not estimable; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.72;To our knowledge, these are the first data to compare FGFR-directed therapy with chemotherapy in patients with

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated impressive activity in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and have become standard treatment options for patients with advanced disease. Data supporting the effectiveness of ICI-based therapy in advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is more limited. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to evaluate the outcomes of patients with advanced nccRCC. Patients were classified into three groups based on first-line therapy: ICI-based therapy (monotherapy or combination), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor monotherapy, or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor monotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR). We used the Kaplan–Meier method to compare OS and TTF between treatment groups and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for prognostic covariates. Results: We identified a total of 1145 patients with metastatic nccRCC. The most common subtype was papillary RCC (54.9%). For first-line therapy, 74.3% received VEGF monotherapy, 15% received mTOR monotherapy, and 10.7% received ICI-based therapy. Median OS in the ICI group was 28.6 months, versus 16.4 months in the VEGF group and 12.2 months in the mTOR group. Median TTF in the ICI group was 6.9 months, versus 5.0 months in the VEGF group and 3.9 months in the mTOR group. ORR was 27.2% in the ICI group, 14.5% in the VEGF group, and 9% in the mTOR group. After adjusting for the IMDC risk group, histological subtype, and age, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.42–0.78, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus VEGF and 0.50 (95% CI 0.36–0.71, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus mTOR. Conclusions: In advanced nccRCC, first-line ICI-based treatment appears to be associated with improved OS compared to VEGF and mTOR targeted therapy. These results should be confirmed in prospective randomised trials.

Aims: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and there is a medical need to improve current treatment options. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival but not overall survival (OS) in platinum-refractory advanced UC (RANGE trial; NCT02426125). Here, we report the exposure-response (ER) of ramucirumab plus docetaxel using data from the RANGE trial. Methods: Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected (cycle 1-3, 5, 9 [day 1] and 30 days from treatment discontinuation), and PK data were analysed using population PK (popPK) analysis. The minimum ramucirumab concentration after first dose administration (Cmin,1, or trough concentration immediately prior to the second dose) was derived by popPK analysis and used as the exposure parameter for ER analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression models and matched case-control analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between Cmin,1 and OS. The Cmin,1 relationship with safety was assessed descriptively. Results: Several poor prognostic factors (ECOG 1, haemoglobin concentration min,1 and OS (P =.0108). Higher exposure quartiles were associated with longer survival and smaller hazard ratios compared to placebo. No new exposure-safety trends were observed within the exposure range (ramucirumab 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). Conclusions: This prespecified ER analyses suggests a positive relationship between efficacy and ramucirumab exposure, with an imbalance associated with disease prognostic factors. Further investigation may elucidate a possible disease-PK relationship.

Combination Therapies; Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Terapias combinadas; Carcinoma metastásico de células renales Teràpies combinades; Carcinoma metastàtic de cèl·lules renals Importance The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized. Objective To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included. Exposures Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician–assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival. Results Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P

In 2017, Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) published the Korean man agement guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. This paper is the 2nd edition of the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. We updated recent many changes of management in metastatic prostate cancer in this 2nd edition guideline. The present guideline consists of the three categories: man agement of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer; management of meta static castration resistant prostate cancer; and clinical consideration for treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In category 1 and 2, levels of evidence (LEs) have been mentioned according to the general principles of evidence-based medicine. And grades of recommendation (GR) was taken into account the qual ity of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the values and preferences, and the use of resources and GR were divided into strong rec ommendations (SR) and weak recommendations (WR). A total of 16 key questions are selected. And we proposed recommendations and described key evidence for each recommendation. The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer is changing very rapid and many trials are ongoing. To verify the results of the fu ture trials is necessary and should be applied to the treatment for metastatic prostate cancer patients in the clini cal practice. Especially, many prostate cancer patients are old age, have multiple underlying medical comorbidities, clinicians should be aware of the significance of medical management as well as clinical efficacy of systemic treat ment.

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

Background: Alterations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) have been identified as oncogenic drivers in several solid tumor malignancies, including urothelial carcinoma (UC). Available pan-FGFR inhibitors target all 4 isoforms of FGFR (FGFR1 - 4) and consequently their efficacy can be limited by off-target toxicity (i.e. inhibition of other non-altered FGFR isoforms) including gastrointestinal, oral mucositis, and cutaneous/nail disorders, as well as FGFR1-mediated hyperphosphatemia. Moreover, clinical studies of pan-FGFR inhibitors have reported the development of drug resistance through acquired gatekeeper mutations (e.g. V555M and V565F) at the time of disease progression. LOXO-435 is a potent, highly isoform-selective FGFR3 inhibitor that is designed to preserve activity in the setting of gatekeeper resistance mutations. Preclinically, LOXO-435 has demonstrated potent in vitro and in vivo activity as a selective inhibitor of both wild-type and oncogenically activated FGFR3, including FGFR3 fusions, point mutations, and acquired gatekeeper resistance mutations without evidence of FGFR1-mediated hyperphosphatemia. Methods: LOXO-FG3-22001 is a multicenter, open-label, first-in-human phase 1a/b study of LOXO-435 in patients (pts) with FGFR3-altered advanced solid tumors, including metastatic UC (mUC) (NCT05614739). Eligible pts (≥ 18 years) must have an advanced or metastatic solid tumor with an FGFR3 alteration detected in tumor or ctDNA, ECOG PS of 0-1, and have received all standard therapy or have no known available options to provide benefit. The study will be conducted in 2 phases: phase 1a dose escalation and phase 1b dose expansion. Dose escalation (cohort A) will begin as a single-patient accelerated design, allowing intra-patient dose escalation, followed by the modified toxicity probability interval-2 method. Additional pts will be allowed to backfill to previously cleared dose levels that demonstrate therapeutically relevant exposures or direct evidence of clinical activity. Dose escalation will assess safety, PK/PD, and antitumor activity of LOXO-435 as monotherapy to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Dose expansion will include 4 cohorts of pts with prespecified activating FGFR3 alterations. Cohort B will enroll pts with mUC and include 2 cohorts to evaluate LOXO-435 as monotherapy (B1, B2) and 1 cohort to evaluate LOXO-435 in combination with pembrolizumab (B3). Cohort C will enroll pts with non-UC advanced solid tumors and will evaluate LOXO-435 as monotherapy (C1). Pts in cohort B1 must have progressed on or were intolerant to a prior FGFR inhibitor, and pts in cohorts B2, B3, and C1 must be FGFR inhibitor treatment naive. Dose expansion will evaluate the safety, PK/PD, and antitumor activity (per RECIST v1.1) of LOXO-435 at the RP2D. Citation Format: Gopa Iyer, Arlene Siefker-Radtke, Matthew Milowsky, Neal Shore, Xin Gao, Melissa A. Reimers, Noah Hahn, Rasha Cosman, Nobuaki Matsubara, Andrea Necchi, Debbie Robbrecht, Armelle Vinceneux, Enrique Grande, Jae-Lyun Lee, Tian Zhang, Tormod Guren, Ulrich M. Lauer, Michal Sarfaty, Bernhard Eigl, Syed Hussain, Xiang Zhao, Arjun V. Balar, Kaitlyn Francese, Ryan Widau, Benjamin Garmezy. A first-in-human phase 1 study of LOXO-435, a potent, highly isoform-selective FGFR3 inhibitor in advanced solid tumors with FGFR3 alterations (trial in progress) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT119.

Background Cabozantinib is approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on the METEOR and CABOSUN trials. However, real‐world effectiveness and dosing patterns of cabozantinib are not well characterized. Methods Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib between 2011 and 2019 were identified and stratified using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. First‐ (1L), second‐ (2L), third‐ (3L), and fourth‐line (4L) overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Dose reduction rates and their association with TTF and OS were determined. Results A total of 413 patients were identified. The ORRs across 1L to 4L were 32%, 26%, 25%, and 29%, respectively, and the median TTF rates were 8.3, 7.3, 7.0, and 8.0 months, respectively. The median OS (mOS) rates in 1L to 4L were 30.7, 17.8, 12.6, and 14.9 months, respectively. For patients treated with 1L PD(L)1 combination agent (n = 31), 2L cabozantinib had ORR of 22%, median TTF of 5.4 months, and mOS of 17.4 months. About 50% (129/258) of patients required dose reductions. The TTF and mOS were significantly longer for patients who required dose reduction vs. patients who did not, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.202–0.672, p, Cabozantinib demonstrates activity for use in real‐world patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma across the first‐ to fourth‐line treatment settings.

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7–36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50–0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (

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

To evaluate the usefulness of a radiomics-based prediction model for predicting response and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1). Sixty-two patients who underwent immunotherapy were divided into training (n = 41) and validation sets (n = 21). A total of 224 measurable lesions were identified on contrast-enhanced CT. A radiomics signature was constructed with features selected using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator algorithm in the training set. A radiomics-based model was built based on a radiomics signature consisting of five reliable RFs and the presence of visceral organ involvement using multivariate logistic regression. According to a cutoff determined on the training set, patients in the validation set were assigned to either high- or low-risk groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare progression-free and overall survival between high- and low-risk groups. For predicting objective response and disease control, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the radiomics-based model were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.65–0.97) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.67–0.98) for the validation set, providing larger net benefit determined by decision curve analysis than without radiomics-based model. The high-risk group in the validation set showed shorter progression-free and overall survival than the low-risk group (log-rank p = 0.044 and p = 0.035). The radiomics-based model may predict the response and survival outcome in patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. This approach may provide important and decision tool for planning immunotherapy. • A radiomics-based model was built based on radiomics features and the presence of visceral organ involvement for prediction of outcomes in metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy. • This prediction model demonstrated good prediction of treatment response and higher net benefit than no model in the independent validation set. • This radiomics-based model demonstrated significant associations with progression-free and overall survival between low-risk and high-risk groups.

Background Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonistplus 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. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 RANGE trial found ramucirumab/docetaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo/docetaxel (median 4.1 vs 2.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.757, p = 0.0118) for treatment of platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Some patients received an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) prior to RANGE. In other studies, unselected patients with platinum-refractory UC exhibited an overall response rate (ORR) of 15–31% to ICIs. OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety data from the subgroup of patients treated with prior ICI were examined using prespecified analyses to compare outcomes between RANGE treatment arms. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind RANGE study (n = 530) took place July 2015-April 2017 in 23 countries. Forty-five patients (8.5%) received prior ICI. PFS was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 17 ramucirumab/docetaxel arm, 28 placebo/docetaxel arm patients were treated with an ICI. The prior-ICI ramucirumab subgroup had worse Bellmunt scores at baseline versus placebo (score of 2-3 : 70.6% vs 25%, respectively). Most patients (84.4%) received the ICI immediately following platinum and immediately prior to RANGE. ORR to prior ICI was 6.7% Responses were achieved by 5/17 (29.4%) on ramucirumab/docetaxel, compared to 2/28 (7.1%) on placebo/docetaxel. Median PFS was 3.15 months on ramucirumab/docetaxel versus 2.73 months on placebo/docetaxel (HR = 0.786, 95% CI = 0.404–1.528, p = 0.4877). The frequency of grade≥3 adverse events was similar between arms. Limitations include sample size and treatment setting of the analyzed population. CONCLUSIONS: Ramucirumab/docetaxel may provide a clinical benefit with acceptable safety in the third-line setting for metastatic UC patients whose disease has progressed on both prior platinum chemotherapy and ICI therapy.

To analyse the incidence of pneumonitis related to enfortumab vedotin (EV) in patients with metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC).Patients with mUC who participated in two EV clinical trials in South Korea were analysed for the incidence and clinical course of EV-related pneumonitis through retrospective, independent review. The clinical characteristics and radiologic attributes of potential pneumonitis were identified and reviewed by the participating investigators and pulmonologists.Between October 2018 and January 2020, 64 patients were enrolled in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials across eight institutions in South Korea and were treated with EV. Among them, 18 (28.1%) developed all-grade EV-related pneumonitis, from which 2 (11.1%) patients died. The median time between the last dosing of immunotherapy and the start of EV was 5.6 weeks (range, 0.71-143.1). The median time from the start of EV treatment to the onset of pneumonitis was 13 weeks (range, 2.7-51.0). Of the patients who developed pneumonitis, 7 (38.9%) were clinically asymptomatic. The most common radiologic finding was organising pneumonia (66.7%).Although we could not rule out the relationship with prior immunotherapy administration, EV-related pneumonitis occurred in approximately 25% of the patients who had received EV in two prospective clinical trials, from which two died. Clinicians should closely monitor patients who have experienced immunotherapy treatment failure for the development of pneumonitis. A delay between initiating EV after termination of immunotherapy should be considered with caution.

Importance: Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma) reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab vs the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Overall survival (OS) results were immature at interim analyses. Objective: To report the final OS results, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses of the association of transcriptomic subgroups with OS in the IMmotion151 trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: IMmotion151 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial that compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with untreated mRCC. IMmotion151 included patients from 152 academic medical centers and community oncology practices in 21 countries. Adult patients with mRCC with components of clear cell or sarcomatoid histologic features, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), adequate performance status, hematologic and end organ function, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 testing were included. IMmotion151 was initiated on May 20, 2015, and the study is ongoing. This final analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to February 14, 2020. Interventions: Receipt of 1200 mg of intravenous (IV) atezolizumab every 3 weeks and 15 mg/kg of IV bevacizumab every 3 weeks or 50 mg orally once daily of sunitinib (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were PFS (previously reported) in patients with PD-L1+ disease and OS in the intention-to-treat population. Additional exploratory outcomes included OS in the PD-L1+ population, association with transcriptomic subgroups, and safety. Results: The IMmotion151 trial assessed 915 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Mean (IQR) age was 62 (56-69) years for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 60 (54-66) years for patients receiving sunitinib; 669 (73.1%) were male and 246 (26.9%) were female. The final analysis showed similar median OS in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in the intention-to-treat (36.1 vs 35.3 months) and PD-L1+(38.7 vs 31.6 months) populations. No new safety signals were reported. The additional exploratory outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib showed improved median OS trends in patients whose tumors were characterized by T-effector/proliferative, proliferative, or small nucleolar RNA transcriptomic profiles (35.4 vs 21.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: The primary end point of PFS was met at interim analyses, although no improvement in OS was observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at the final analysis. Biomarker analyses provided insight into which patients with mRCC may benefit from combined anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420821.

Purpose: In an exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), tumor mutational burden (TMB), T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP), and stromal signature with outcomes of pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma (UC). Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced UC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in the single-arm phase II KEYNOTE-052 trial (NCT02335424) and salvage pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel/vinflunine) in the randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial (NCT02256436). The association of each biomarker (continuous variable) with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using logistic regression (ORR) and Cox PH (PFS, OS), adjusted for ECOG PS; nominal P values were calculated without multiplicity adjustment (one-sided, pembrolizumab; two-sided, chemotherapy). Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05. Results: In KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1, TMB, and TcellinfGEP were significantly associated with improved outcomes; stromal signature was significantly associated with worse outcomes. In KEYNOTE-045, although findings for TMB and TcellinfGEP with pembrolizumab were consistent with those of KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1 was not significantly associated with improved outcomes, nor was stromal signature associated with worse outcomes with pembrolizumab; chemotherapy was not associated with outcomes in a consistent manner for any of the biomarkers. Hazard ratio (HR) estimates at prespecified cutoffs showed an advantage for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 or TMB, with a trend toward lower HRs in the combined positive score ≥10 and the TMB ≥175 mutation/exome subgroup. For TcellinfGEP, PFS and OS HRs were lower in the TcellinfGEP-nonlow subgroup regardless of treatment. Conclusions: Multiple biomarkers characterizing the tumor microenvironment may help predict response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in UC, and potential clinical utility of these biomarkers may be context-dependent.

Background Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study. Methods The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597. Findings Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7–26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30–49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations.

673 Background: Across the world, treatment of patients with mRCC is heterogeneous with different access to treatment sequences and number of lines of therapy (LOTs) employed. For instance, patients receiving first line (1L) nivolumab+ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) may be offered second-line (2L) and third line (3L) vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeted kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI), whereas patients receiving 1L pembrolizumab or avelumab in combination with axitinib (IO+AXI) may only receive one subsequent VEGFR-TKI in 2L. We aimed to examine whether these different treatment strategies impact overall survival (OS). Methods: Adult mRCC patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI or at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI from the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers were included. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate median OS (time from 1L to death). Results were stratified by 1L IMDC prognostic risk. Results: Among 128 patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI (median age 61 years, 77% White, 77% male, 37% from the US), 14% had favorable, 61% had intermediate, and 26% had poor IMDC risk. The most common 2L treatments following 1L NIVO+IPI were sunitinib (38%), cabozantinib (27%), and pazopanib (20%). Among 104 patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI (median age 62 years, 75% White, 67% male, 38% from the US), 28% had favorable, 48% had intermediate, and 25% had poor IMDC risk. The most common 2L treatments following 1L IO+AXI were cabozantinib (57%) and sunitinib (10%). Median OS are presented in the table, which suggested no difference in survival for patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI compared to patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI. Conclusions: Treatment for patients with mRCC varies depending on the 1L regimen chosen and by country. Our results demonstrate that, even with potential guaranteed time bias and IMDC imbalances, there is no statistically significant difference in OS for patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI and patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI, suggesting that selecting effective treatments in 1L resulting in fewer LOTs may have similar clinical outcomes as multiple LOTs. [Table: see text]