PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Background. The programmed death 1 (PD‐1) checkpoint inhibitors (CKIs) can lead to immune‐related adverse events (irAEs). We sought to evaluate whether the development of irAEs correlates with treatment response in non‐melanoma malignancies. Materials and Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who received anti‐PD‐1 CKI monotherapy at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), time to next therapy or death (TTNTD), and overall survival (OS). Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression models were used to determine the association between irAE incidence and ORR, and Kaplan‐Meier curves with log‐rank tests and Cox regression models were used for the comparison of TTNTD and OS. Results. Between November 2011 and November 2016, 160 patients were treated with >1 dose of an anti‐PD‐1 CKI. Seventy‐three (46%) were treated on a clinical trial. Immune‐related adverse events were noted in 64 patients (40%), with steroids required in 36 (23%). Of the 142 patients evaluable for clinical response, 28 patients (20%) achieved a partial response at first scan. An association between irAEs and ORR was seen in clinical trial patients (p = .007), but not in non‐trial patients (p = .13). When controlling for clinical trial participation and cancer type using multivariate analysis, low‐grade irAEs had higher ORR (p = .017) and longer TTNTD (p = .008). No association between irAE incidence and OS was seen (p = .827). Immune‐related adverse events that required steroid treatment were marginally associated with increased TTNTD (p = .05, hazard ratio 0.62) but were not associated with OS (p = .13). Conclusion. We demonstrate several positive associations between the development of irAEs and clinical outcomes in non‐melanoma patients treated with PD‐1 CKIs, for which further validation is required. Implications for Practice. This study evaluated whether the development of immune‐related adverse events in non‐melanoma patients treated with programmed cell death 1 checkpoint inhibitors correlates with improved clinical outcomes. The results indicate that for a subset of patients, in particular those with low‐grade immune‐related adverse events, immune‐related adverse events predicted for an improved response rate and longer time to next therapy or death.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by cystectomy is the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Mutations in DNA damage repair genes are associated with pathologic downstaging after NAC. We hypothesized that a combination of biomarker selection and clinical staging would identify patients for cystectomy-sparing active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-arm, phase II, noninferiority trial to evaluate a risk-adapted approach for MIBC. Patients with cT2-T3N0M0 MIBC underwent NAC with accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (AMVAC). Pre-NAC transurethral bladder tumor specimens were sequenced for mutations in ATM , ERCC2 , FANCC , and RB1 . Patients with ≥1 mutation and cT0 post-NAC began AS. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 2 years for the entire cohort with the null hypothesis rejected if the lower bound exact one-sided 95% CI exceeds 64%. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled, 33 (47%) had a mutation, and 25 (36%) began per-protocol AS. With a median follow-up of 40 months, the 2-year MFS for all patients was 72.9% (lower bound exact one-sided 95% CI, 62.8). The 2-year MFS was 76.0% in the AS group (95% CI, 54.2 to 88.4) and 71.1% (95% CI, 55.5 to 82.1) in the remaining patients. In the AS group, 17 patients (68%) had some recurrence and 12 (48%) were metastasis-free with an intact bladder. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 84.3% (95% CI, 73.4 to 91.0); OS was 88.0% (95% CI, 67.3 to 96.0) and 82.2% (95% CI, 67.6 to 90.7) in the AS and not-AS groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with MIBC treated with AMVAC followed by a risk-adapted approach to local consolidation achieved a 2-year MFS rate of 73%. The primary end point was not met, but 17% of all enrolled patients and 48% of the AS group avoided cystectomy without metastatic disease.

Background: Although financial distress is commonly recognized in patients with cancer, it may be more prevalent in younger adults. This study sought to evaluate disparities in overall and financial distress in patients with cancer as a function of age. Methods: This was a single-center cross-sectional study of patients with solid malignancies requiring cancer therapy. The patient questionnaire included demographics, financial concerns, and measures of overall and financial distress. Data analyses compared patients in 3 age groups: young (<50 years), middle-aged (50–64 years), and elderly (≥65 years). Results: The cohort included 119 patients (median age, 62 years; 52% female; 84% white; 100% insured; 36% income ≥$75,000). Significant financial concerns included paying rent/mortgage (P=.003) and buying food (P=.032). Impact of Event Scale (IES) results revealed significant distress in 73% young, 64% middle-aged, and 44% elderly patients. The mean Distress Thermometer (DT) score was 6.1 (standard deviation [SD], 2.9) for young patients, 5.4 (SD, 2.6) for middle-aged, and 4.4 (SD, 3.3) for elderly patients. Young patients were more likely than elderly patients to have a higher IES distress score (P=.016) and DT score (P=.048). The mean InCharge score was lowest (indicating greatest financial distress) in the young group and progressed with age: 5.0 (SD, 1.9), 5.7 (SD, 2.7), and 7.4 (SD, 1.9), respectively (P<.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that the relationship between financial distress and overall distress was strongest in the middle-age group; as the DT increased by 1 point, the InCharge scores decreased by 0.52 (P<.001). Conclusions: Overall and financial distress are more common in young and middle-aged patients with cancer. There are several factors, including employment, insurance, access to paid sick leave, children, and education, that affect younger and middle-aged adults and are less of a potential stressor for elderly individuals.