Outcome for patients who relapse after chemotherapy for stage 4 urothelial carcinoma (UC) is poor. Optimal second-line chemotherapy remains undefined.¹ As such, there is a significant unmet need for therapies that are well tolerated and confer clinical benefit in this population. Recent encouraging data with immune checkpoint inhibitors have resulted in positive randomized phase 3 studies and regulatory approvals.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC); however, toxicity is substantial, responses are rarely durable, and many patients with la/mUC are ineligible. Each enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab have shown a survival benefit versus chemotherapy in UC, are not restricted by cisplatin eligibility, and warrant investigation as a first-line (1L) combination therapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing phase Ib/II, multicenter, open-label study, 1L cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC received enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg once daily on days 1 and 8 and pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) intravenously once daily in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points included confirmed objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients received enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were peripheral sensory neuropathy (55.6%), fatigue (51.1%), and alopecia (48.9%). Twenty-nine patients (64.4%) had grade 3 or higher TRAEs; the most common were increased lipase (17.8%), maculopapular rash (11.1%), and fatigue (11.1%). One death (2.2%) was classified as a TRAE. The confirmed objective response rate after a median of nine cycles was 73.3% with a complete response rate of 15.6%. The median DOR and median OS were 25.6 months and 26.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed a manageable safety profile. Most patients experienced tumor shrinkage. The median DOR and median OS exceeding 2 years in a cisplatin-ineligible patient population make this a promising combination currently under investigation in a phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223856 ).

Purpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer that may develop de novo or as a mechanism of treatment resistance. N-myc is capable of driving NEPC progression. Alisertib inhibits the interaction between N-myc and its stabilizing factor Aurora-A, inhibiting N-myc signaling, and suppressing tumor growth. Patients and Methods: Sixty men were treated with alisertib 50 mg twice daily for 7 days every 21 days. Eligibility included metastatic prostate cancer and at least one: small-cell neuroendocrine morphology; ≥50% neuroendocrine marker expression; new liver metastases without PSA progression; or elevated serum neuroendocrine markers. The primary endpoint was 6-month radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Pretreatment biopsies were evaluated by whole exome and RNA-seq and patient-derived organoids were developed. Results: Median PSA was 1.13 ng/mL (0.01–514.2), number of prior therapies was 3, and 68% had visceral metastases. Genomic alterations involved RB1 (55%), TP53 (46%), PTEN (29%), BRCA2 (29%), and AR (27%), and there was a range of androgen receptor signaling and NEPC marker expression. Six-month rPFS was 13.4% and median overall survival was 9.5 months (7.3–13). Exceptional responders were identified, including complete resolution of liver metastases and prolonged stable disease, with tumors suggestive of N-myc and Aurora-A overactivity. Patient organoids exhibited concordant responses to alisertib and allowed for the dynamic testing of Aurora–N-myc complex disruption. Conclusions: Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, a subset of patients with advanced prostate cancer and molecular features supporting Aurora-A and N-myc activation achieved significant clinical benefit from single-agent alisertib.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

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.