Search

BACKGROUND: The IMvigor210 trial demonstrated clinical benefit and manageable toxicity with atezolizumab monotherapy [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)] in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) in primary analyses. Final efficacy and safety results after long-term follow-up are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II single-arm trial of atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced UC included two cohorts: untreated patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cohort 1; n = 119) and those previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (cohort 2; n = 310). Atezolizumab was administered i.v. (1200 mg every 21 days) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were independent review facility-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 in cohort 1 and independent review facility-assessed ORR per RECIST 1.1 and investigator-assessed modified (m)RECIST in cohort 2. Overall survival (OS), efficacy by PD-L1 status, and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: At data cut-off (1 June 2023), the median survival follow-up was 96.4 months (range, 0.2-103.4 months) in cohort 1 and 46.2 months [0.2 (censored)-54.9 months] in cohort 2. In cohort 1, the ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 23.5% (16.2% to 32.2%) in all patients and 28.1% (13.8% to 46.8%) in the PD-L1 tumor-infiltrating immune cell (IC)2/3 subgroup. Median OS (95% CI) was 16.3 months (10.4-24.5 months) overall and 12.3 months (6.0-49.8 months) in the PD-L1 IC2/3 subgroup. In cohort 2, the ORR (95% CI) was 16.5% (12.5% to 21.1%) per RECIST 1.1 and 19.7% (95% CI 15.4% to 24.6%) per mRECIST in all patients and 27.0% (18.6% to 36.8%) and 28.0% (19.5% to 37.9%), respectively, in the PD-L1 IC2/3 subgroup. Median OS (95% CI) was 7.9 months (6.7-9.3 months) in all patients and 11.9 months (9.0-22.8 months) in the IC2/3 subgroup. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 21.8% (cohort 1) and 18.7% (cohort 2); one treatment-related death occurred in cohort 1. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up, atezolizumab monotherapy demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy with durable responses in a subset of patients with metastatic UC; there were no new safety signals.

The aim of this article is to raise awareness among healthcare providers about the adverse events (AEs) associated with the combined treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. The differential diagnostic allocation of these AEs to the respective agents is discussed, overlaps between the side effect profiles of the two drugs are identified and strategies for an effective management of these AEs are presented. The recommendations are based on the currently valid prescription information for both drugs, the results of pivotal approval studies and the guidelines of recognized specialist organizations as well as the clinical experience of the authors., Competing Interests: Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien. Interessenkonflikt: Gemäß den Richtlinien des Springer Medizin Verlags werden Autoren und Wissenschaftliche Leitung im Rahmen der Manuskripterstellung und Manuskriptfreigabe aufgefordert, eine vollständige Erklärung zu ihren finanziellen und nichtfinanziellen Interessen abzugeben. Autoren: M. Retz gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Forschungsförderung (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch BMS, (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Novartis; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen. M.-O. Grimm gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Forschungsförderung (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch BMS, Intuitive Surgical, Bayer Vital; (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, EUSA Pharma, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Takeda; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, EUSA Pharma, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Takeda. K. Leucht gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Übernahme von Reise-/Kongresskosten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch Ipsen, Medical Writing (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von BMS, Intuitive Surgical, Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von UroTrials. S. Zschäbitz gibt an: (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer; Übernahme von Reise-/Kongresskosten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck, MSD, Pfizer; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Wissenschaftliche Leitung: Die vollständige Erklärung zum Interessenkonflikt der Wissenschaftlichen Leitung finden Sie am Kurs der zertifizierten Fortbildung auf www.springermedizin.de/cme . Der Verlag: erklärt, dass für die Publikation dieser CME-Fortbildung keine Sponsorengelder an den Verlag fließen. Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma face a poor prognosis. Standard first-line treatment involves platinum-based combinations followed by avelumab maintenance therapy. Follow-up therapies include enfortumab vedotin, vinflunine, and taxanes., Objective: To analyze new drug combinations in first-line and follow-up treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma concerning their clinical relevance, toxicities, and novel treatment sequences., Materials and Methods: Analysis of new study data from EV-302/KN-A39 (enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab) and CheckMate-901 (nivolumab and gemcitabine-cisplatin) for untreated metastatic patients as well as TROPHY-U-01 (sacituzumab govitecan) and THOR (erdafitinib) for later lines., Results: The new standard in first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma is the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. For cisplatin-eligible patients with contraindications to enfortumab vedotin, the combination of nivolumab and gemcitabine-cisplatin offers an alternative. Erdafitinib presents a new biomarker-based option in the follow-up treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Conclusion: These novel combinations are revolutionizing the treatment standard for metastatic urothelial carcinoma and necessitate a new approach to managing side effects., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background and Objective: We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data., Methods: The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS)., Key Findings and Limitations: The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities., Patient Summary: The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited responses have been observed in patients treated with enzalutamide after disease progression on abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but androgen receptor signaling impacts T-cell function., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients in cohort C of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study, who received ≥4 wk of treatment with abiraterone acetate in the prechemotherapy mCRPC state and experienced treatment failure or became drug-intolerant, were included., Intervention: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoints were safety, the confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 on blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) on BICR and overall survival (OS)., Results and Limitations: A total of 102 patients received pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide. Median follow-up was 51 mo (interquartile range 37-56). The confirmed PSA response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-33%). The confirmed ORR was 11% (95% CI 2.9-25%; 4/38 patients; two complete responses). Median rPFS was 6.0 mo (95% CI 4.1-6.3). Median OS was 20 mo (95% CI 17-24). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 94 patients (92%); grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 44 patients (43%). The incidence of treatment-related rash was higher with combination therapy than expected from the safety profile of each drug. One patient (1.0%) died of a TRAE (cause unknown). Study limitations include the single-arm design., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide had limited antitumor activity in patients who received prior abiraterone treatment without previous chemotherapy for mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with the individual profiles of each agent., Patient Summary: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide showed limited antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The KEYNOTE-365 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Guidelines can only give treatment recommendations for defined patient groups if high quality and meaningful evidence is available. However, patients included in clinical trials for the treatment of metastatic and/or locally advanced bladder cancer (mUC) are generally not representative for the spectrum of patients encountered in daily clinical practice. In particular, patients with different systemic pretreatments, variable prestudy responses or variable time to tumor progression are not sufficiently considered in trials and guideline recommendations. Accordingly, recommendations for the treatment of mUC patients with previous perioperative systemic therapy are lacking. To provide some guidance for daily uro-oncological practice despite the limited evidence, we sought to develop expert opinion-based treatment recommendations. These recommendations focus on palliative first-line therapy of mUC. Both perioperative pretreatment with classical cisplatin-based systemic therapy and/or immunotherapy, as well as the time to tumor recurrence have been considered., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

177 Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) is a new treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Its low toxicity profile favors use in elderly patients or in patients with critical comorbidities. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of [ 177 Lu]-PSMA RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old. Methods: Eighty mCRPC patients at least 80 y old underwent [ 177 Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT and were retrospectively selected. The patients were previously treated by androgen receptor-directed therapy, received taxane-based chemotherapy, or were chemotherapy-ineligible. The best prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was calculated, as well as clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and overall survival (OS). Toxicity data were acquired until 6 mo after the last treatment cycle. Results: Of 80 patients, 49 (61.3%) were chemotherapy-naïve and 16 (20%) had visceral metastases. The median number of previous mCRPC treatment regimens was 2. In total, 324 cycles (median, 4 cycles; range, 1-12) with a median cumulative activity of 23.8 GBq (interquartile range, 14.8-42.2) were applied. A PSA decline of 50% was achieved in 37 (46.3%) patients. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed higher 50% PSA response rates than chemotherapy-pretreated patients (51.0% vs. 38.7%, respectively). Overall, median cPFS and OS were 8.7 and 16.1 mo, respectively. The median cPFS and OS of chemotherapy-naïve patients were significantly longer than those of chemotherapy-pretreated patients (10.5 vs. 6.5 mo and 20.7 vs. 11.8 mo, respectively, P < 0.05). A lower hemoglobin level and higher lactate dehydrogenase level at baseline were independent predictors of shorter cPFS and OS. Treatment-emergent grade 3 toxicities were anemia in 4 patients (5%), thrombocytopenia in 3 patients (3.8%), and renal impairment in 4 patients (5%). No nonhematologic grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities were observed. The most frequent clinical side effects were grade 1-2 xerostomia, fatigue, and inappetence. Conclusion: [ 177 Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old is safe and effective, comparable to previously published data on non-age-selected cohorts with a low rate of high-grade toxicities. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed a better and longer response to therapy than taxane-pretreated patients. [ 177 Lu]-PSMA RLT seems to be a meaningful treatment option for older patients., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (ChT) is the preferred perioperative treatment in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (UCUB). Nevertheless, a certain number of patients are ineligible for platinum-based ChT. This trial compared immediate adjuvant vs. delayed gemcitabine ChT at progression in platinum-ineligible patients with high-risk UCUB., Methods: High-risk platinum-ineligible UCUB patients (n = 115) were randomized 1:1 to adjuvant gemcitabine (n = 59) or gemcitabine at progression (n = 56). Overall survival was analyzed. Additionally, we analyzed progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL)., Results: After a median follow-up of 3.0 years (inter quartile range [IQR]: 1.3-11.6), adjuvant ChT did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.57-1.24; P = 0.375), with 5-year OS of 44.1% (95% CI: 31.2-56.2) and 30.4% (95% CI: 19.0-42.5), respectively. We noted no significant difference in PFS (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.49-1.18; P = 0.218), with 5-year PFS of 36.2% (95% CI: 22.8-49.7) in the adjuvant group and 22.2% (95% CI: 11.5%-35.1%) when treated at progression. Patients with adjuvant treatment showed a significantly worse QoL. The trial was prematurely closed after recruitment of 115 of the planned 178 patients., Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in terms of OS and PFS for patients with platinum-ineligible high-risk UCUB receiving adjuvant gemcitabine compared to patients treated at progression. These findings underline the importance of implementing and developing new perioperative treatments for platinum-ineligible UCUB patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest J.H. received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder and sponsor (Lilly) had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC., Methods: Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points., Results: Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.

Introduction: Urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) with clinical suspicion of locally advanced growth or pelvic lymphogenic spread has a high risk of progression and death., Patients and Methods: Bladder cancer patients with locally advanced (cT3/4) tumor growth or suspected pelvic lymphogenic spread (cN+) were treated with preoperative cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and consolidative cystectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. We aimed to identify prognostic factors and describe the patients' oncological outcome., Results: A complete dataset including follow-up data was available for 96 patients. In a univariate analysis, we identified cN stage (cN+ vs cN-, HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-6.0), response to chemotherapy (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5), ypT stage (ypT0/is/1 vs ypT2-4, HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.4-6.8), ypN stage (ypN + vs ypN-, HR 7.9, 95% CI 3.7-17.0), resection status (HR 4.4, 95% CI HR 1.5-13.0) as significantly associated with cancer-specific survival. In a multivariate regression analysis, both cN and ypN statuses were validated as independent prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival (cN: HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.1; ypN: HR 5.5, 95% CI 2.0-15.1)., Discussion: Lymph node status was identified as a prognostic marker in a high-risk cohort of UBC patients treated with inductive chemotherapy and cystectomy. Establishing cN status as a prognosticator underlines the necessity to aggressively treat these patients despite reported impreciseness of imaging procedures in UCB. Patients with histologically positive lymph nodes following preoperative chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis, and thus, the need for adjuvant systemic treatment is emphasized., Conclusion: Both clinically and pathologically affected lymph nodes convey a poor prognosis in bladder cancer and necessitate aggressive treatment., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Loss of MHC I expression is a tumoral escape mechanism, part of the process of immunoediting. MHC expression patterns and their prognostic and predictive value have not been studied in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UC) so far., Objective: To correlate the expression of MHC I and MHC II with prognosis after curative treatment, response to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibition., Patients and Methods: We analyzed different patient cohorts for their expression of MHC I(HLA-A/B/C) and II (HLA-DR/DP/DQ) and examined potential correlations with prognosis and response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy or PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy., Results and Limitations: Overall, MHC expression was analyzed in 246 patients, and complete MHC I loss was seen in 29.7% of patients. In 35% of patients aberrant tumoral expression of MHC II was observed. In a homogeneous cohort of 149 patients with cystectomy with curative intent there were no significant differences in survival between the MHC expression groups. MHC I+ and MHC II+ patients had higher infiltration densities with CD8+ T effector cells.An analysis of 77 additional patients (cohort II) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy revealed no associations of MHC status with response defined as < pT2 pN0 in the cystectomy specimen. Lastly, we analyzed 26 patients with metastatic disease treated with PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy (cohort III, best response: 11 PD, 5 SD, 10 OR) and observed responses exclusively in MHC I+ patients (10/19 patients, 52.6). All four MHC I+ /MHC II+ /PD-L1+ patients had a progression-free interval of at least 12 months., Conclusions: Tumoral MHC I expression is frequently lost in UC. We found no association with prognosis or response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy but response to checkpoint inhibitors was limited to MHC I+ patients., Competing Interests: Nawroth R. is an Editorial Board member of this journal, but was not involved in the peer-review process nor had access to any information regarding its peer-review. Slotta-Huspenina J.: none Schwamborn K.: lecture honoraria and advisory board participation for Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck Steiger K.: none Simon R.: none Kirchhoff F.: none Büchler J.: none Fiedler J.: none Retz M.: lecture honoraria from BMS Ritschel C.: none Gschwend J.: lecture honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Roche, consultant for AAA, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Horn T.: lecture honoraria from Merck, medac GmbH and Pfizer, advisory board participation Merck and Bayer, (© 2022 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.)

Background: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib., Methods: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2 -positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT03338790., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KF reports advisory board fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Sanofi, CureVac, and Orion. MR reports research grants (all institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. DPP reports consulting fees from Ada Cap, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, Mirati, Monopteros, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and UroGen; stock ownership in Bellicum Pharmaceuticals and Tyme; payment for expert testimony from Sanofi and Celgene; research grants from Ada Cap, Agensys, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Endocyte, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Innocrin, Lilly, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seattle Genetics; local principal investigator (PI) nonfinancial interests (all institutional) in Ada Cap, Agensys, Inc., Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Innocrin, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer; medical writing support from Bioscript; study funding from Astellas; and editing support from Complete HealthVizion. JCG reports consulting fees from Eisai; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and MSD Australia, advisory board fees from BMS and Janssen (J&J); and stock ownership in ICON Cancer Care. JP-G reports research funding (all institutional) from BMS, Amgen, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; travel expenses from Roche, BMS, and MSD; and advisory board fees from BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, and MSD. LL reports local PI nonfinancial (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi and Telix. SZ reports research grants (institutional) from Eisai; speakers bureau fees from Eisai (personal) and Merck (institutional); honoraria for educational events from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; travel expenses from Celgene (institutional); advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi (personal), and Astellas, BMS, EUSA, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche, (all institutional); receipt of drugs (institutional) from KURA; local PI nonfinancial interests from Astellas, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Sanofi/Aventis, and SEAGEN; and coordinating PI nonfinancial interests from AVEO Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; and speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. HM reports travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche, advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GG reports research funding (institutional) from BMS; speakers bureau fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, and Sanofi/Aventis; travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and advisory board fees (all institutional) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. DAB reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. SLM reports speakers bureau fees from BMS; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from BMS, Merck, and Roche/Genentech. JCVL reports employment from Hospital Civil de Guadalajara 'Fray Antonio Alcalde'; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all personal and institutional) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Europharma, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. EMK reports speakers bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Janssen; writing engagement fees from Research Review; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer. DC reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca Spain, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institutional) from Janssen. AF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. FS reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, and Pfizer; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M-OG reports trial funding and medical writing funding from BMS, research funding (institutional) from BMS and Intuitive Surgical; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel expenses from BMS and Merck Serono. DRS has no competing interest to report. AJA reports research funding and writing grant (institutional) from BMS; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, Exelixis, Forma, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; local PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Merck, Forma, and AstraZeneca; coordinating PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, and Pfizer; and steering committee member nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Dendreon. PB reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. NPA reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. KU-K reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study. KU-K is now employed by BioNTech US. XW reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study, and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. XW is no longer employed by BMS. JL reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. AL reports employment from and stock ownership in Clovis Oncology. RKP reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen and Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Genomic Health, Janssen, Jounce, and Pfizer; PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, ESSA, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; steering committee member nonfinancial interests from BMS; and licensed technology to Tempus Labs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) frequently receive docetaxel after they develop resistance to abiraterone or enzalutamide and need more efficacious treatments., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone in patients with mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: The trial included patients with mCRPC in the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 cohort B study who were chemotherapy naïve and who experienced failure of or were intolerant to ≥4 wk of abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC with progressive disease within 6 mo of screening., Intervention: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 wk (Q3W), docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 IV Q3W, and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoints were safety, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression; the disease control rate (DCR) and duration of response (DOR) according to RECIST v1.1 by BICR; ORR, DCR, DOR, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR; and overall survival (OS)., Results and Limitations: Among 104 treated patients, 52 had measurable disease. The median time from allocation to data cutoff (July 9, 2020) was 32.4 mo, during which 101 patients discontinued treatment, 81 (78%) for disease progression. The confirmed PSA response rate was 34% and the confirmed ORR (RECIST v1.1) was 23%. Median rPFS and OS were 8.5 mo and 20.2 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 100 patients (96%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 46 patients (44%). Seven AE-related deaths (6.7%) occurred (2 due to treatment-related pneumonitis). Limitations of the study include the single-arm design and small sample size., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone demonstrated antitumor activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC. Safety was consistent with profiles for the individual agents. Further investigation is warranted., Patient Summary: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab combined with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and the steroid prednisone for patients with metastatic prostate cancer resistant to androgen deprivation therapy , and who never received chemotherapy. The combination showed antitumor activity and manageable safety in this patient population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573., (Copyright © 2022 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary Merck & Co., Inc, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Due to the approval of immuno-oncological therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma has become more complex in all lines of therapy. Thus, in first-line treatment, immunotherapy alone or immune maintenance therapy following platinum-based chemotherapy can be applied in addition to treatment with platinum-based combination therapies alone. In addition to the approval status and guideline recommendation, patient-specific factors such as comorbidities as well as patient preference must always be considered when choosing a therapy. In the following, we summarize the current data on treatment options in the first-line therapy of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and illustrate their practical application using a patient example., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)