Search

Elizabeth Nally,1 Matthew Young,1 Vishwani Chauhan,2 Connor Wells,1 Bernadett Szabados,1 Thomas Powles,1 Francesca Jackson-Spence1 1Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 2Department of Medical Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UKCorrespondence: Elizabeth Nally, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK, Tel +447921786256, Email elizabethnally@nhs.netAbstract: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is an aggressive and difficult malignancy to treat. Owing to its rarity and the lack of specific high-level data, management mirrors that of urothelial cancer of the bladder (UCB). Over the past decade, UTUC has shown minimal improvement in survival rates. Its location makes the diagnosis and staging of UTUC more complex. Moreover, surgery often leads to a decline in renal function, rendering a proportion of patients ineligible for cisplatin. There is debate as to how best manage locally advanced UTUC perioperatively. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the treatment landscape for UCB, the response to ICIs in UTUC has been variable. With new technologies, our understanding of the molecular biology of UTUC has grown, helping to identify key molecular differences from UCB. This review summarises the evidence available on UTUC as a disease entity, discusses treatment in perioperative and metastatic settings, and considers future directions for the management of patients diagnosed with UTUC.Keywords: urothelial, upper tract, immunotherapy, targeted therapy

Matthew D Galsky,1 Heidi S Wirtz,2 Brian Bloudek,3 Zsolt Hepp,2 Mallory Farrar,2 Jack Timmons,3 Enrique Lenero,4 Thomas Powles5 1Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 2Seagen Inc., Bothell, WA, USA; 3Curta Inc., Seattle, WA, USA; 4Astellas Pharma Inc., Northbrook, IL, USA; 5Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UKCorrespondence: Matthew D Galsky, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA, Tel +1 212 241 6756, Fax +1 646 537 9639, Email matthew.galsky@mssm.eduObjective: First-line (1L) maintenance avelumab prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in JAVELIN Bladder 100. OS was measured from maintenance initiation in patients with disease control following 1L platinum-based therapy (PBT). The OS impact of maintenance for the 1L PBT–treated population is unknown since it was not measured from 1L initiation, nor can it be benchmarked with other 1L therapies. To characterize the OS impact of maintenance avelumab, we used an oncology simulation model to estimate the OS of maintenance-eligible and -ineligible patients with aUC from 1L PBT initiation.Methods: We developed a simulated cohort of 1L PBT–treated patients with aUC, including those who did and did not receive maintenance avelumab. Eligibility was assessed at 5.6 months post 1L PBT initiation based on the JAVELIN trial design. Among the 1L-treated population, 58% (95% credible interval [CrI] 49– 67%) were projected to be eligible (calculated from contemporary phase 3 trials); of those, 85% were assumed to receive maintenance. The model estimated median OS (mOS) among a maintenance-ineligible simulated cohort which when combined with the maintenance-eligible cohort yielded an estimated OS in the overall maintenance- intended population from 1L PBT initiation.Results: Approximately half of the modeled 1L PBT–treated population received maintenance. Estimated mOS was 10.1 months (95% CrI 7.5– 13.5) for the maintenance-ineligible cohort, 29.3 months (95% CrI 24.8– 33.9) for the maintenance-eligible, received maintenance cohort, and 15.9 months (95% CrI 13.2– 19.1) in the overall maintenance-intended, 1L PBT–treated population, including those eligible and ineligible for maintenance.Conclusion: The model shows that maintenance avelumab has a modest impact on OS in the overall 1L PBT–treated population of patients with aUC. While maintenance avelumab improves OS for eligible patients, a large proportion of the maintenance-intended population may not receive maintenance due to ineligibility or physician/patient choice.Keywords: maintenance eligibility, maintenance avelumab, oncology simulation model, overall survival, urothelial carcinoma

Background: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2a inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies. Methods: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response). Results: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively. Conclusions: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P=0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]