Search

Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors hold promise for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cooperation between urologists and other multidisciplinary bladder cancer specialists can surmount the challenges involved in using these agents in bladder-sparing approaches. This strategy could deliver a new era of comprehensive evaluation and multimodal treatment for this patient population.

Introduction To describe the efficacy of infigratinib, a potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, across lines of therapy (LOT) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients had mUC and prior platinum-based chemotherapy, unless contraindicated, and activating FGFR3 mutation/fusion. Patients received infigratinib 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) in a single-arm, open-label study. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response (BOR) that included unconfirmed responses, and overall survival (OS) were also assessed. Subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes by LOT was performed. Results Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 13 (19.4%) received infigratinib as early-line therapy for mUC due to ineligibility to receive platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall, ORR was 25.4% (95% CI 15.5-37.5) and DCR was 64.2% (95% CI 51.5-75.5). ORR was 30.8% (95% CI 9.1-61.4) with early-line infigratinib and 24.1% (95% CI 13.5-37.6) for ≥2 LOT. DCR was 46.2% (95% CI 19.2-74.9) for early-line and 68.5% (95% CI 54.4-80.5) for ≥2 LOT. PFS and OS appeared similar in both groups. Thirteen of 59 patients with a bladder primary tumor received early-line treatment with an ORR of 30.5% (95% CI 9.1-61.4), and 46 received ≥2 LOT with an ORR of 20.3% (95% CI 9.4-33.9); BOR was 38.5% (95% CI: 13.9-68.4%) and 42.6% (95% CI: 29.2-56.8%) in the early-line and salvage settings, respectively. Eight patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma received salvage therapy (ORR, 50.0%; DCR, 100.0%). No significant differences in toxicities between LOT were observed. Conclusion Infigratinib has notable activity in patients with mUC regardless of LOT. The findings support the evaluation of infigratinib across different settings in mUC.

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.

BACKGROUND Among men with metastatic prostate cancer, about 10% have germline alterations in DNA damage response genes. Most studies have examined BRCA2 alone or an aggregate of BRCA1/2 and ATM. Emerging data suggest that ATM mutations may have distinct biology and warrant individual evaluation. The objective of this study is to determine whether response to prostate cancer systemic therapies differs between men with germline mutations in ATM (gATM) and BRCA2 (gBRCA2). METHODS This is an international multicenter retrospective matched cohort study of men with prostate cancer harboring gATM or gBRCA2. PSA50 response (≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen) was compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The study included 45 gATM and 45 gBRCA2 patients, matched on stage and year of germline testing. Patients with gATM and gBRCA2 had similar age, Gleason grade, and PSA at diagnosis. We did not observe differences in PSA50 responses to abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer between the two groups; however, 0/7 with gATM and 12/14 with gBRCA2 achieved PSA50 response to PARPi (p

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: We included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19–5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42–0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45–0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately. CONCLUSION: Prior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study’s retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

Purpose To assess the association of patient age with response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Materials and methods We analyzed data from 1105 patients with MIBC. Patients age was evaluated as continuous variable and stratified in quartiles. Pathologic objective response (pOR; ypT0-Ta-Tis-T1N0) and pathologic complete response (pCR; ypT0N0), as well survival outcomes were assessed. We used data of 395 patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to investigate the prevalence of TCGA molecular subtypes and DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alterations according to patient age. Results pOR was achieved in 40% of patients. There was no difference in distribution of pOR or pCR between age quartiles. On univariable logistic regression analysis, patient age was not associated with pOR or pCR when evaluated as continuous variables or stratified in quartiles (all p > 0.3). Median follow-up was 18 months (IQR 6–37). On Cox regression and competing risk regression analyses, age was not associated with survival outcomes (all p > 0.05). In the TCGA cohort, patient with age ≤ 60 years has 7% less DDR gene mutations (p = 0.59). We found higher age distribution in patients with luminal (p p = 0.002) compared to those with luminal papillary subtype. Conclusions While younger patients may have less mutational tumor burden, our analysis failed to show an association of age with response to preoperative chemotherapy or survival outcomes. Therefore, the use of preoperative chemotherapy should be considered regardless of patient age.

Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have provided practice-changing outcomes in treating many cancers, ICI-related gastrointestinal toxicity can limit their use. Upper gastrointestinal toxicity is not common nor as well described as lower gastrointestinal toxicity. We aimed to characterize the clinical presentation, endoscopic and histologic features, treatment response, and outcomes of ICI-related esophagitis. Methods: We retrospectively studied patients at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in whom esophagitis developed after receiving ICIs from June 2011 through January 2020. We included patients with endoscopic evidence of esophagitis and excluded those with other obvious causes of esophagitis. A chi-square test was used to assess associations between categorical variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between continuous variables. Results: Of 657 consecutive patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during or within 6 months of completing ICI-based therapy, 21 (3%) had esophagitis deemed to be from ICIs. Of these patients, 1 (5%) received an inhibitor of CTLA-4 alone, 15 (71%) received anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 monotherapy, and 5 (24%) received a combination of these. Median time from ICI initiation to onset of esophagitis was 4 months. Upon evaluation with EGD, only 3 patients (14%) had isolated esophageal involvement; 18 (86%) had concurrent involvement of the stomach, duodenum, or both. Most patients (67%) were treated with proton pump inhibitors, and 4 (19%) received steroids (prednisone or budesonide). The mortality rate was 38% (median follow-up, 15 months). Conclusions: Esophagitis associated with ICI use is rare. The diagnosis is one of exclusion because its clinical presentation appears similar to that of inflammation resulting from other causes. It often occurs in conjunction with other upper gastrointestinal toxicity. Symptoms are mild and respond well to nonimmunosuppressive treatment, with few severe complications.

Summary Background Standard treatment for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is transurethral resection of bladder tumour followed by intravesical BCG immunotherapy. However, despite high initial responses rates, up to 50% of patients have recurrence or become BCG-unresponsive. PD-1 pathway activation is implicated in BCG resistance. In the KEYNOTE-057 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, in BCG-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Methods We did this open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study in 54 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. In cohort A of the trial, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ of the bladder, with or without papillary tumours, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and who were ineligible for or declined radical cystectomy were enrolled. All enrolled patients were assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 24 months or until centrally confirmed disease persistence, recurrence, or progression; unacceptable toxic effects; or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was clinical complete response rate (absence of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer or progressive disease), assessed by cystoscopy and urine cytology approximately 3 months after the first dose of study drug. Patient follow-ups were done every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter for up to 5 years. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and met BCG-unresponsive criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02625961 , and is ongoing. Findings Between Dec 9, 2015, and April 1, 2018, we screened 334 patients for inclusion. 186 patients did not meet inclusion criteria, and 47 patients were assigned to cohort B (patients with BCG-unresponsive high grade Ta or any grade T1 papillary disease without carcinoma in situ; results will be reported separately). 101 eligible patients were enrolled and assigned to receive pembrolizumab. All 101 patients received at least one dose of the study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Five patients had disease that did not meet the US Food and Drug Administration definition of BCG-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and were therefore not included in the efficacy analysis (n=96). Median follow-up was 36·4 months (IQR 32·0–40·7). 39 (41%; 95% CI 30·7–51·1) of 96 patients with BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ of the bladder with or without papillary tumours had a complete response at 3 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients; the most common were arthralgia (in two [2%] patients) and hyponatraemia (in three [3%] patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (8%) patients. There were no deaths that were considered treatment related. Interpretation Pembrolizumab monotherapy was tolerable and showed promising antitumour activity in patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer who declined or were ineligible for radical cystectomy and should be considered a a clinically active non-surgical treatment option in this difficult-to-treat population. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Detecting genomic alterations (GAs) in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) can expand treatment options by identifying candidates for targeted therapies. Erdafitinib is FDA-approved for patients with platinum-refractory aUC with activating mutation or fusion in FGFR2/3. We explored the prevalence and spectrum of FGFR2/3 GAs identified with plasma cfDNA NGS testing (Guardant360) in 997 patients with aUC. FGFR2/3 GAs were detected in 201 patients (20%) with characterized activating GAs in 141 (14%). Our results indicate the Guardant360-based FGFR2/3 GA detection rate is similar to those described from previous studies employing tumor tissue testing, suggesting that plasma-based cfDNA NGS may non-invasively identify candidates for anti-FGFR targeted therapies.

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line). Results: Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28% ; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months ; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73- 1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months ; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed- histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively). Conclusion: Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed- histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: Current first-line treatment options in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) unfit to receive cisplatin-containing chemotherapy include PD-1/L1 inhibitors and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of these therapies remains unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis. Consecutive cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC treated with first-line carboplatin-containing chemotherapy followed sequentially by second-line PD-1/L1 inhibitor, or the reverse order, were included. Patient demographics, objective response, time to treatment failure for first-line (TTF1) and second-line (TTF2) therapy, interval between end of first-line and initiation of second-line treatment (Interval(1L-2L)), and overall survival (OS) were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the association of sequencing on OS. RESULTS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we identified 146 cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC treated with first-line (1L) PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy followed by second-line (2L) carboplatin-containing chemotherapy (Group 1, n=43) or the reverse sequence (Group 2, n=103). In the overall cohort, median age was 72, 76% were men, and 18% had liver metastasis. In both groups, objective response rates were higher with carboplatin-containing chemotherapy (45.6% 1L, 44.2% 2L) compared to PD-1/L1 inhibitors (9.3% 1L, 21.3% 2L). On multivariate analysis, treatment sequence was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.05, p=0.85). Site of metastasis was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this biomarker-unselected cohort of cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC, PD-1/L1 inhibitor followed by carboplatin-containing chemotherapy and the reverse sequence had comparable OS.

Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the United States in African Americans (AA) are higher than in Caucasians. Eastern Cuyahoga County in Ohio is majority AA and is considered an underserved population particularly vulnerable to healthcare disparities. There is a paucity of data about shared decision making among high-risk AA men with regard to prostate cancer screening. This study aims to examine shared versus informed decision making (SDM versus IDM) in a randomized, control trial among a large, high-risk AA population.Patients were included in annual one-day outreach events, each held over 3 years (2017-2019), and were randomized at each event into IDM (control) and SDM (investigational) groups and then were offered screening via prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). The primary endpoints were proportion of participants over 40 who did not demonstrate decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening measured by the SURE score, as well as change of knowledge score about prostate cancer screening.Overall, 175 patients were enrolled in the trial; 79 in the SDM arm and 96 in the IDM arm. The investigational (SDM) arm had 3/79 (3.9%) conflict versus 6/96 (6.4%) in the control (IDM) arm (Our education-based study showed no significant difference between SDM and IDM with regard to decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening. The study also demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge about prostate cancer screening in a high-risk AA population in both groups. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations; however, the study can serve as a benchmark for future studies in this very important topic.

Background: To detail two cases of sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma (UC) with rapid progression, disseminated metastases, and early death, detailing the results of somatic tumor profiling using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Case Series: The first case presented is a rare case of UC of the renal pelvis with osteosarcomatous differentiation and venous tumor thrombus in a 65-year-old man found to have a heterozygous germline variant of unknown significance in the neurofibromatosis-1 gene. The second case is a 72-year-old woman with sarcomatoid UC of the bladder. Herein, we discuss the presentation and clinical course, histology, immunohistochemical profiles, and somatic tumor testing results. We then review the literature regarding this rare and aggressive entity, detail options for optimal management, and address the role of molecular profiling in these cases. Conclusion: Sarcomatoid UC is a rare and aggressive entity. NGS may be useful in these cases to guide systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has shown overall survival benefit for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In contrast, there is limited data for adjuvant treatment options in patients with residual muscle invasive disease after NAC followed by radical cystectomy (RC). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of studies examining adjuvant treatment options for patients with residual MIBC at RC despite NAC. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed database and Clinicaltrials.gov (end point August 2019) for publications and registered trials combining NAC, RC, and adjuvant treatment options. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 659 articles and registered trials were further analyzed. Finally, 10 studies and 7 registered clinical trials met inclusion criteria. While 5 publications did not further characterize NAC and adjuvant regimens, the remaining 5 studies reported mainly platinum-based regimens. Altogether, the selected studies showed conflicting results regarding the potential role of adjuvant treatment strategies in the setting of residual disease after NAC and RC. CONCLUSION: Although there is an urgent need for adjuvant treatment options for patients with MIBC after NAC and residual muscle invasive disease at RC, there has been very limited evidence available. Inclusion of such patients into ongoing adjuvant clinical trials is urgently needed; active surveillance is strongly recommended in the absence of trials.

PURPOSE: Aggressive care at the end of life (EOL) can lead to unnecessary suffering and health care costs for patients with cancer. Despite geographic proximity and cultural similarities, we hypothesize that EOL care is more intense in the United States multipayer system versus the Canadian single-payer system. We compared health care utilization at EOL among patients with cancer in Alberta, Canada, with those in Washington state in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II to IV solid tumors who died between 2014 and 2016 in Alberta and between 2015 and 2017 in Washington were identified from regional population-based cancer registries linked to treatment and hospitalization records (Alberta) and health claims from major regional insurance plans (Washington). The proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy and having multiple emergency department (ED) visits, or intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in the last 30, 60, and 90 days of life (DOL) in Alberta and Washington were determined and compared using two-sample z-test and multivariable logistic regression (α = .006 after Bonferroni correction). RESULTS: Of patients, 11,177 in Alberta and 12,807 in Washington were included. Patients were similar in age (median, 71 v 72 year), with more patients in Washington with no comorbidities. More patients in Washington were treated with chemotherapy (12.6% v 6.6%; adjusted OR [aOR], 2.74), had multiple ED visits (16.2% v 12.1%; aOR, 1.40), and ICU admissions (23.7% v 3.9%; aOR, 14.27) in the last 30 DOL. Utilization was also higher in Washington in the last 60 and 90 DOL and among those with stage IV disease and those age 65 years and older. CONCLUSION: Utilization of chemotherapy, ED visits, and ICU admissions near EOL was higher in Washington versus Alberta. Future studies to characterize drivers of aggressive EOL care may help improve cancer care for patients in the United States and Canada.

Introduction: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may have increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Cancer and anti-cancer therapies are well-known additional risk factors for VTE. Nonetheless, the VTE risk in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 infection remains unknown as recent studies have not found an association due to sample size limitations. We report the incidence of and risk factors for VTE and PE among hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) developed an international retrospective cohort study (NCT04354701) to investigate the clinical course and complications of COVID-19 among adult patients with an active or previous history of cancer. For the current study, cumulative incidences of clinically detected VTE and PE were analyzed among hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed to examine the interaction between intensive care unit (ICU) admission and recent anti-cancer therapy on VTE outcomes. Bivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between baseline variables and VTE; unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. These variables included age, sex, obesity (BMI>30), race/ethnicity, performance status, comorbidities, blood type, history of VTE, recent surgery, recent anti-cancer therapy, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping (adapted from Khorana Score), pre-admission anticoagulant or antiplatelet use, and ICU admission status. Results: From March 17, 2020 to July 31, 2020, 3914 patients were enrolled in the CCC19 registry. For the present analysis, patients were excluded if they had inadequate follow-up The overall incidence of inhospital VTE and PE was 9.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The corresponding estimates were 13.4% and 7.9% among the ICU subgroup. On bivariable analysis, significant predictors of VTE included ICU admission, recent anti-cancer therapy, active cancer status, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping, and pre-admission antiplatelet use (Table 1). Pre-admission anticoagulant use had significant associations with PE but not VTE. Multivariable adjustment is ongoing to identify independent risk factor for VTE and clarify the impact of pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet use controlled for other potential confounders. Both ICU admission status and anti-cancer therapy increased the risk of VTE independently. Non-ICU patients not on anti-cancer therapy had the lowest incidence of VTE (4.5%), whose estimate was similar to that reported in the non-cancer hospitalized population with COVID-19 infection. Patients with either ICU admission or recent anti-cancer therapy had the intermediate risk (11.0%), whereas ICU patients with recent anti-cancer therapy had the highest risk (16.7%). We did not observe confounding or effect modification by the ICU subgroup on the association between anti-cancer therapy and VTE. Conclusion: In this cohort study of hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19, recent anti-cancer therapy, active disease, high-risk VTE cancer subtypes, and ICU admission have increased risk of VTE and PE, while pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy may reduce the risk. This information will aid in developing a risk prediction tool for VTE in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. Disclosures Kuderer: G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Total Health: Consultancy; Invitae: Consultancy; Beyond Springs: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; celldex: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Warner:HemOnc.orgLLC: Other: Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options; IBM Watson Health: Consultancy; Westat: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding. Shah:American Cancer Society and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding. Zon:Amagma Therapeutics.: Consultancy, Other: stockholder. Shah:Aspen Pharma: Research Funding. Gulati:Puma Biotechnology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Isoray: Research Funding. Khaki:Merck: Other: share/stockholder; Pfizer: Other: share/stockholder. Thompson:AIM Specialty Health, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Via Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Synapse Precision Medical Council: Other: Travel expenses; Doximity: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grivas:Oncogenex: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Bavarian Nordic,: Research Funding; QED Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mirati Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Heron Therapeutics: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria; Exelixis: Honoraria; EMD Serono: Honoraria; Driver: Honoraria; Clovis Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb,: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biocept: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. de Lima Lopes:Bavarian Nordic: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; G1 Therapeutics: Research Funding; adaptimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; rgenix: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding. Shyr:Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Speakers Bureau. Pennell:Merck: Consultancy; Cota: Consultancy; Inivata: Consultancy; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Friese:Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Merck Foundation: Research Funding; National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Patel:reast Cancer Research Foundation: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Odonate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Radius: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Halmos:Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant Health: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli-Lilly: Research Funding; Advaxis: Research Funding; Mirati: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; TPT: Consultancy. Choueiri:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pionyr: Consultancy, Other; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Products Limited: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lilly: Consultancy, Research Funding; Peloton: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tempest: Consultancy, Other; Lilly Ventures: Consultancy; International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, entitled "PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response," filed January 3, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/445,094, filed January 11, 2017: Patents & Royalties; Prometheus Labs: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Corvus: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cerulean: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; oundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, entitled "Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy," filed October 31, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/581,175, filed N: Patents & Royalties; Calithera: Research Funding; Analysis Group: Research Funding; Sanofi/Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy, Honoraria; Up-to-Date: Consultancy, Honoraria; NCCN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lancet Oncology: Honoraria; NEJM: Honoraria; American Society of Medical Oncology: Honoraria; Harborside Press: Honoraria; Navinata Healthcare: Honoraria; Platform Q: Honoraria; L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria; PeerView and PER: Honoraria; OnClive: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ipsen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tracon: Research Funding; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Analysis Group: Consultancy, Honoraria; Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc: Honoraria. Peters:Debiopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioinvent: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biocartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eli Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Illumina: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Serono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merrimack: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma Mar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vaccibody: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biodesix: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Clovis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Painter:Roche: Other: stock or other ownership; OPKO Health Inc: Other: stock or other ownership; Inovio: Other: stock or other ownership; Epizyme: Other: stock or other ownership; Pfizer: Other: stock or other ownership. Rini:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Other: Sotckholder/stock options; Surface Oncology: Consultancy; Synthorx: Consultancy; 3D Medicine: Consultancy; Arravive: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AVEO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lyman:Amgen: Research Funding; Mylan: Consultancy; Beyond Spring: Consultancy; Samsung: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Invitae: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy. Connors:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosovsky:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dova: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy.

DNA damage response (DDR) gene alterations in cancer are associated with a higher tumor mutational burden (TMB) and may impact clinical outcomes of urothelial cancer (UC). Here, we explore the prognostic role of DDR alterations in advanced UC treated with anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 agents. The study included 53 patients who had FoundationOne genomic sequencing and received anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy. Fisher exact test and trend test were used to assess differences in objective response rate (ORR). Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of initial UC diagnosis and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The cohort had a median age of 66 with 64% receiving platinum‐based chemotherapy. DDR alterations (including ATM) were associated with a non‐significantly higher ORR to PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade (41% vs. 21%, p = 0.136). Patients with DDR alterations (excluding ATM) had non‐significantly longer OS, likely due to a small sample size (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.20–1.38, p = 0.19). ATM alterations were associated with a non‐significantly higher ORR (40% vs. 29%, p = 0.6), but also with significantly shorter OS (HR = 5.7, 95% CI 1.65–19.74, p = 0.006). Patients with ≥ 3 DDR alterations (including ATM) had substantially higher TMB (p = 0.01) and higher ORR (80%) with PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade versus 24% ORR in patients with, DDR alterations are associated with higher ORR and nonsignificantly prolonged OS in patients with advanced UC receiving PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors. However, presence of ATM alterations correlated with shorter OS, irrespective of a nonsignificant trend towards higher ORR to anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 agents.

In a large observational study in patients with COVID-19 and cancer, survival was not significantly influenced by receipt of COVID-19 treatments, except hydroxychloroquine plus any other treatment, which was associated with reduced survival., Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

PURPOSE The phase II single-arm KEYNOTE-052 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma (UC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred seventy patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 24 months. Positive tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was defined as combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. Response was assessed by independent central review every 9 weeks per RECIST v1.1. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS At data cutoff (September 26, 2018), the minimum follow-up was 2 years since the last patient enrolled. ORR was 28.6% (95% CI, 24.1% to 33.5%); 33 patients (8.9%) and 73 patients (19.7%) achieved complete and partial response, respectively. The median duration of response was 30.1 months (95% CI, 18.1 months to not reached [NR]); responses lasted ≥ 12 and ≥ 24 months in 67% and 52% of patients, respectively. Forty patients with complete or partial response completed 2 years of study treatment, and 32 had ongoing response at completion. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7 to 13.1 months), and 12- and 24-month OS rates were 46.9% and 31.2%, respectively. In patients with CPS ≥ 10, ORR was 47.3% (95% CI, 37.7% to 57.0%) and median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 28.5 months). In patients with lymph node–only disease, ORR was 49.0% (95% CI, 34.8% to 63.4%), and median OS was 27.0 months (12.4 months to NR). There were no new safety signals. CONCLUSION First-line pembrolizumab confers meaningful and durable clinical response in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced UC and is associated with prolonged OS, particularly with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and lymph node–only disease.

LAY SUMMARY Despite longer survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), metastatic urothelial carcinoma remains lethal. There is an unmet need to further improve the efficacy of these agents. In their phase 2 trial, Zhang et al. evaluated the combination of pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus acalabrutinib (a novel agent inhibiting an enzyme considered relevant to immunotherapy resistance) based on strong rationale but did not demonstrate clinical benefit compared with pembrolizumab alone. Future trials that examine such promising rational combinations may be able to evaluate selected patients based on validated biomarkers to optimize benefit in an endless pursuit of personalizing therapies.

Urinary tract cancer can be pure urothelial carcinoma, pure nonurothelial carcinoma or variant urothelial carcinoma (defined here as mixed urothelial carcinoma). Little is known regarding outcomes for patients with variant urothelial carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesized that variant urothelial carcinoma does not compromise immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.We performed a retrospective cohort study across 18 institutions. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data were collected for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were divided into pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma subgroups, with variant urothelial carcinoma further divided by type of variant (ie squamous, neuroendocrine etc). We compared overall response rate using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and progression-free survival and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards.Overall 519 patients were identified, with 395, 406 and 403 included in overall response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival analyses, respectively. Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors between patients with pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma was comparable (28% vs 29%, p=0.90) without significant differences for individual subtypes vs pure urothelial carcinoma. Median overall survival for patients with pure urothelial carcinoma was 11.0 months vs 10.1 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.60), but only 4.6 months for patients with neuroendocrine features (9 patients, HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.40 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.003). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for pure vs 5.2 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.43) and 3.7 months for neuroendocrine features (HR 1.87, 95% CI 0.92-3.79 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.09).Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was comparable across histological types. However, overall survival was worse for patients with tumors containing neuroendocrine features. Variant urothelial carcinoma should not exclude patients from receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Bladder cancer is a heterogeneous disease including conventional urothelial carcinoma (UC) and its histologic variants, and non-urothelial carcinoma, including squamous and glandular neoplasms. Urothelial carcinoma accounts for the majority of bladder cancer cases, but morphologic variants are common and include nested, microcystic, micropapillary, lymphoepithelioma-like, plasmacytoid, sarcomatoid, giant cell, undifferentiated, clear cell and lipoid. Certain variants of UC tend to be associated with a poor prognosis and have diagnostic and potential treatment implications that make the identification of variant histology crucial to clinical decision making. While there is still uncertainty regarding the prognostic implications of many of these variants, identifying and reporting variant histology is important to develop our understanding of their biology. Unique molecular features accompany many of these morphologic variants and to better understand these tumors, we review the molecular and clinical implications of histologic variants of bladder cancer. Major efforts are underway to include variant histology and divergent differentiation of UC in clinical trials to develop evidence based approaches to treatment. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on variant histology of urothelial cancer and to highlight molecular findings and the clinical relevance of these tumors.

Summary Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. Findings Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. Funding American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Introduction Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) is uncommon and poorly understood. We aimed to explore the clinical behavior and outcomes of this unique patient population. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with UC and CNS metastasis, treated in our institution (2006-2018), along with an exploratory patient-point meta-analysis of a similar patient population derived from a comprehensive literature review. Data regarding diagnosis, management, and outcomes were extracted. Overall survival, time to CNS metastasis (TTCM), and residual survival (RS) from CNS involvement to death were calculated (Kaplan–Meier method). Cox regression was used for testing key clinicopathologic associations. Results We identified 20 “institutional” and 154 “literature” patients with adequate data granularity for analysis. Median TTCM was 17.7 (institutional cohort) and 10 (literature cohort) months. Most patients who developed CNS metastases had previous non-CNS metastasis (15/20 [75%] and 103/154 [67%], respectively). CNS lesions without previous history of metastasis were identified in 5/20 (25%) and 33/154 (21%) cases and those patients had a shorter TTCM. CNS lesions in the absence of known UC history were also documented in 18/154 (12%) literature cases. Multifocal CNS disease was associated with shorter RS in both cohorts in univariate, but not multivariate, analysis. Conclusion We observed a variability in disease presentation and course, with a subset of patients showing an early predilection for CNS insult, potentially reflecting a diverse underlying biology. Genomic profiling studies, elucidating the molecular landscape, and driving future treatments should be considered in this setting.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are regarded as harbingers of metastases. Their ability to predict response to therapy, relapse, and resistance to treatment has proposed their value as putative diagnostic and prognostic indicators. CTCs represent one of the zeniths of cancer evolution in terms of cell survival; however, the triggers of CTC generation, the identification of potentially metastatic CTCs, and the mechanisms contributing to their heterogeneity and aggressiveness represent issues not yet fully deciphered. Thus, prior to enabling liquid biopsy applications to reach clinical prime time, understanding how the above mechanistic information can be applied to improve treatment decisions is a key challenge. Here, we provide our perspective on how CTCs can provide mechanistic insights into tumor pathogenesis, as well as on CTC clinical value. In doing so, we aim to (a) describe how CTCs disseminate from the primary tumor, and their link to epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT); (b) trace the route of CTCs through the circulation, focusing on tumor self-seeding and the possibility of tertiary metastasis; (c) describe possible mechanisms underlying the enhanced metastatic potential of CTCs; (d) discuss how CTC could provide further information on the tissue of origin, especially in cancer of unknown primary origin. We also provide a comprehensive review of meta-analyses assessing the prognostic significance of CTCs, to highlight the emerging role of CTCs in clinical oncology. We also explore how cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis, using a combination of genomic and phylogenetic analysis, can offer insights into CTC biology, including our understanding of CTC heterogeneity and tumor evolution. Last, we discuss emerging technologies, such as high-throughput quantitative imaging, radiogenomics, machine learning approaches, and the emerging breath biopsy. These technologies could compliment CTC and ctDNA analyses, and they collectively represent major future steps in cancer detection, monitoring, and management.

In patients with rare histologies of bladder cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the bladder (ACB) and squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC), there are limited standard therapy options, defining an unmet medical need.In this comparative comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) study, genomic alterations (GAs), and immuno-oncology (IO) biomarkers have been analyzed.Within the Foundation Medicine database, 143 cases with centrally reviewed pure ACB, 2142 with pure urothelial carcinoma (UC), and 83 with pure SCC were subjected to CGP. All patients developed advanced disease following a primary diagnosis of bladder cancer.CGP using a hybrid capture-based assay and immunohistochemistry (IHC).Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on 1.1 Mbp of sequenced DNA, and microsatellite instability (MSI) was determined on 114 loci. Programmed cell-death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was determined by IHC (Ventana SP-142 assay), with1% tumor cells (TCs) or tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) scoring positive.Pure ACB patients were younger and more often female than pure UC and pure SCC patients. UC and SCC had a significantly higher median TMB than ACB (p0.001). Rare CD274 (PD-L1) amplification cases were more frequently seen in SCC than in UC (5% vs 1%), and were not seen in ACB. MSI high status was very uncommon in all tumor types (0-1%). The frequencies of PD-L1 expression in both TCs and TILs was higher in UC and SCC (both 30%) than in ACB (18%). The results are limited by their retrospective nature and lack of clinical data annotation.Deep sequencing revealed significant differences in IO biomarkers among the three major subtypes of bladder carcinomas. UC and SCC revealed higher frequencies of PD-L1 expression and higher TMB than ACB, and SCC has the highest frequency of CD274 amplification. The presence of pure SCC features should not disqualify patients for inclusion in IO trials.Tumor samples from patients diagnosed with advanced pure adenocarcinoma of the bladder (ACB) or pure squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) have been analyzed in terms of frequency of putative immunotherapy biomarkers. The results indicated that pure SCC of the bladder was characterized by genomic features that portend similar response possibilities to immunotherapy compared with the classical pure urothelial carcinoma. Conversely, for pure ACB there might be different therapeutic opportunities, such as targeted therapies against peculiar genomic alterations in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Plasmacytoid urothelial carcinoma is a rare bladder cancer variant with scarce data on outcomes and prognostic factors. OBJECTIVE: We report our institutional experience with this histology to determine response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, definitive surgery and survival. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients with plasmacytoid, as well as conventional urothelial carcinoma (for comparison) seen in our institution (2007– 2018). Baseline characteristics, clinicopathologic and treatment data were captured. T-test, chi-squared and log-rank test was used for group comparison. Kaplan Meier method was used for estimation of overall survival and Cox regression for identification of prognostic factors. RESULTS: 64 patients with plasmacytoid and 418 with conventional urothelial histology were identified; 53% of those with plasmacytoid presented with cT3/4 stage and 67% underwent extirpative surgery. Patients with plasmacytoid histology had higher rates of pT3/4 (65% vs. 28%), nodal disease (37% vs. 16%) and positive surgical margins (23% vs. 5%) compared to urothelial group (p

Biomarker-driven clinical trials are crucial for improving outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Multiplatform genomic analyses utilizing next generation sequencing of tumor tissue and cell-free circulating tumor DNA have provided novel insights into the biology of UC and identified several molecular subtypes with potential therapeutic implications. Several "targetable" genomic alterations have been identified, such as those involving Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR), Human Epidermal growth factor Receptors, DNA damage response pathway, among others. Agents targeting those pathways have demonstrated encouraging efficacy in early clinical trials, while the FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib received accelerated approval by the FDA for platinum-refractory metastatic bladder cancer harboring FGFR2/3 alterations. Identification and validation of targets and potential biomarkers predictive of response will be crucial for successfully incorporating novel therapeutic strategies in the evolving treatment landscape of aUC. Standardization of molecular profiling, regarding assay, timing, origin of tumor specimen and other parameters may enable a more systematic assessment of clinical utility. PATIENT SUMMARY: 'Personalized cancer therapy' aims to tailor treatments to the characteristics of an individual patient's tumor. Next generation sequencing analyzes genes in a patient's tumor sample to identify abnormalities unique to his/her cancer. Clinicians can attempt to use this information to select the best treatment at the right time. This approach has shown significant promise and resulted in the approval of a new therapy for certain patients with advanced urothelial cancer; however, more work is required for broader impact and added value in patient care overall.

Background: Patients with treatment-naive advanced urothelial cancer (UC) Ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy are typically older and have comorbidities, representing a difficult-to-treat population. Objective: To evaluate the safety and antitumor activity of first-line pembrolizumab in subgroups of cisplatin-ineligible older patients (aged ≥65 and ≥75 yr) with advanced UC in KEYNOTE-052 (NCT02335424), including those with poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 2 [ECOG PS2]). Design, setting, and participants: Patients were cisplatin ineligible, had treatment-naive, histologically/cytologically confirmed, locally advanced/metastatic UC with measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 [RECIST v1.1]), and had ECOG PS0–2. Patient subgroups analyzed were aged ≥65 yr (n = 302), ≥75 yr (n = 179), ≥65 yr with ECOG PS2 (≥65 yr + ECOG PS2; n = 119), and ≥75 yr + ECOG PS2 (n = 78). Intervention: All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk until confirmed progression, intolerable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or 24 mo of therapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1. The key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and safety. Results and limitations: ORRs for the ≥65 yr, ≥75 yr, ≥65 yr + ECOG PS2, and ≥75 yr + ECOG PS2 subgroups were 29%, 27%, 29%, and 31%, respectively; rates of complete and partial responses were similar across subgroups (9%, 5%, 6%, and 6%, and 20%, 22%, 23%, and 24%, respectively). Median DOR and OS were also consistent across the ≥65 yr and ≥65 yr + ECOG PS2 subgroups and the ≥75 yr and ≥75 yr + ECOG PS2 subgroups. Study limitations included open-label design, lack of a comparator group, and nature of post hoc exploratory analysis. Conclusions: The clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced UC appeared to be consistent regardless of age and/or poor performance status., Patient summary: This study looked at whether older age and poorer performance status affect how well patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial cancer ineligible for standard-of-care treatment respond to pembrolizumab. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were not affected by older age or poorer performance status, making it an effective option.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have already been approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and are now being investigated for perioperative treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Ongoing trials are assessing ICIs as monotherapy and in combination with other treatments. Early data are promising, and long-term survival data are awaited to confirm the potential of ICIs in MIBC.

Key Points Question Given the higher COVID-19–related mortality rate observed among men than among women, is androgen deprivation therapy associated with decreased rate of 30-day mortality from COVID-19 among patients with prostate cancer? Findings In this cohort study of 1106 patients, no statistically significant difference was found in the rates of all cause 30-day mortality following COVID-19 infection among men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy (15%) vs those not receiving androgen deprivation therapy (14%). Meaning The findings of this cohort study do not support an association between androgen deprivation therapy and 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 infection., Importance Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been theorized to decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with prostate cancer owing to a potential decrease in the tissue-based expression of the SARS-CoV-2 coreceptor transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Objective To examine whether ADT is associated with a decreased rate of 30-day mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study analyzed patient data recorded in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry between March 17, 2020, and February 11, 2021. The consortium maintains a centralized multi-institution registry of patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who developed COVID-19. Data were collected and managed using REDCap software hosted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Initially, 1228 patients aged 18 years or older with prostate cancer listed as their primary malignant neoplasm were included; 122 patients with a second malignant neoplasm, insufficient follow-up, or low-quality data were excluded. Propensity matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor method with a 1:3 ratio of treated units to control units, adjusted for age, body mass index, race and ethnicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, smoking status, comorbidities (cardiovascular, pulmonary, kidney disease, and diabetes), cancer status, baseline steroid use, COVID-19 treatment, and presence of metastatic disease. Exposures Androgen deprivation therapy use was defined as prior bilateral orchiectomy or pharmacologic ADT administered within the prior 3 months of presentation with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis for patients receiving ADT compared with patients not receiving ADT after propensity matching. Results After exclusions, 1106 patients with prostate cancer (before propensity score matching: median age, 73 years [IQR, 65-79 years]; 561 (51%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White) were included for analysis. Of these patients, 477 were included for propensity score matching (169 who received ADT and 308 who did not receive ADT). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in the primary end point of the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42). Conclusions and Relevance Findings from this cohort study suggest that ADT use was not associated with decreased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, large ongoing clinical trials will provide further evidence on the role of ADT or other androgen-targeted therapies in reducing COVID-19 infection severity., This cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry examines whether androgen deprivation therapy is associated with decreased rates of mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with prostate cancer.

Background:: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is associated with improved overall and cancer-specific survival. The post-NAC pathological stage has previously been reported to be a major determinant of outcome. Objective:: To develop a postoperative nomogram for survival based on pathological and clinical parameters from an international consortium. Design, setting, and participants:: Between 2000 and 2015, 1866 patients with MIBC were treated at 19 institutions in the USA, Canada, and Europe. Analysis was limited to 640 patients with adequate follow-up who had received three or more cycles of NAC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:: A nomogram for bladder cancer–specific mortality (BCSM) was developed by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Decision curve analysis was used to assess the model's clinical utility. Results and limitations:: A total of 640 patients were identified. Downstaging to non-MIBC (ypT1, ypTa, and ypTis) occurred in 271 patients (42 %), and 113 (17 %) achieved a complete response (ypT0N0). The 5-yr BCSM was 47.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–52.6 %). On multivariable analysis, covariates with a statistically significant association with BCSM were lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.90 [95% CI: 1.4–2.6]; p < 0.001), positive surgical margins (HR 2.01 [95 % CI: 1.3–2.9]; p < 0.001), and pathological stage (with ypT0/Tis/Ta/T1 as reference: ypT2 [HR 2.77 {95 % CI: 1.7–4.6}; p < 0.001] and ypT3–4 [HR 5.9 {95 % CI: 3.8–9.3}; p < 0.001]). The area under the curve of the model predicting 5-yr BCSM after cross validation with 300 bootstraps was 75.4 % (95 % CI: 68.1–82.6 %). Decision curve analyses showed a modest net benefit for the use of the BCSM nomogram in the current cohort compared with the use of American Joint Committee on Cancer staging alone. Limitations include the retrospective study design and the lack of central pathology. Conclusions:: We have developed and internally validated a nomogram predicting BCSM after NAC and radical cystectomy for MIBC. The nomogram will be useful for patient counseling and in the identification of patients at high risk for BCSM suitable for enrollment in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy. Patient summary:: In this report, we looked at the outcomes of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in a large multi-institutional population. We found that we can accurately predict death after radical surgical treatment in patients treated with chemotherapy before surgery. We conclude that the pathological report provides key factors for determining survival probability. We developed a nomogram predicting bladder cancer–specific mortality after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy in a large, multi-institutional patient cohort.

Our goal was to identify discrete clinical characteristics associated with safe discharge from an emergency department/urgent care for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19 infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and prior to widespread vaccination.We retrospectively analyzed 255 adult patients with a history of cancer who presented to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) urgent care center (UCC) from March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020 with concurrent COVID-19 infection. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and 30-day mortality from initial emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) visit and the absence of a severe event within 30 days. External validation was performed on a retrospective data from 29 patients followed at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center that presented to the local emergency department. A late cohort of 108 additional patients at MSKCC from June 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 was utilized for further validation.In the MSKCC cohort, 30-day mortality and severe event rate was 15% and 32% respectively. Using stepwise regression analysis, elevated BUN and glucose, anemia, and tachypnea were selected as the main predictors of 30-day mortality. Conversely, normal albumin, BUN, calcium, and glucose, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio3, lack of (severe) hypoxia, lack of bradycardia or tachypnea, and negative imaging were selected as the main predictors of an uneventful course as defined as a Lack Of a Severe Event within Thirty Days (LOSETD). Utilizing this information, we devised a tool to predict 30-day mortality and LOSETD which achieved an area under the operating curve (AUC) of 79% and 74% respectively. Similar estimates of AUC were obtained in an external validation cohort. A late cohort at MSKCC was consistent with the prior, albeit with a lower AUC.We identified easily obtainable variables that predict 30-day mortality and the absence of a severe event for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19. This has been translated into a bedside tool that the clinician may utilize to assist disposition of this group of patients from the emergency department or urgent care setting.

Objective To describe the current treatment landscape in advanced urothelial cancer (aUC)/metastatic urothelial cancer and in particular to review the relevant literature highlighting recent advances in the treatment of patients with aUC after progression on chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Background aUC is a very aggressive disease with poor outcomes. Over the past several years, its treatment landscape has seen significant advances with the approval of ICI and targeted agents, which have led to improved outcomes. The current standard of care for most patients with aUC involves platinum-based chemotherapy followed by ICI after progression or as switch maintenance therapy (if no progression after chemotherapy). Treatment of patients following progression on ICI is more challenging, but novel therapies have been approved, such as erdafitinib for tumors with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) or FGFR3 activating mutation or fusion (can also be used following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy), enfortumab vedotin (EV) and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in an unselected patient population. Many other trials in this space are currently ongoing and other promising agents may also potentially become available in the future. Methods Narrative overview of the recent literature relevant to the treatment of advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer following progression on chemotherapy and ICI was undertaken. Relevant literature was obtained from review of computerized databases including pubmed.gov and proceedings of major conferences including American Society of clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meetings, GU ASCO Symposia and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Meetings. Conclusions In this narrative review, we highlight the current dynamic treatment landscape in aUC, emphasizing the recent important developments and a few examples of ongoing clinical trials. In particular, we focus on therapy options available following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy and ICI, a treatment space where until recently there had been no FDA-approved treatment options. The recent pivotal trials of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) that led to FDA approvals in this space are highlighted, as are other agents currently in development. We conclude by discussing future directions and ongoing challenges in this evolving disease space.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance+best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) vs BSC alone in pa...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432), which enrolled patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had not progressed with first-line (1L) pl...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Hospice improves quality of life as patients with cancer reach the end of life. Patients who die of bladder cancer have some of the lowest described rates of hospice use ...

We investigated the pathological response rates and survival associated with 3 vs 4 cycles of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle invasive bladder cancer.In this cohort study we analyzed clinical data of 828 patients treated with NAC and radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2020. A total of 384 and 444 patients were treated with 3 and 4 cycles of NAC, respectively. Pathological objective response (pOR; ypT0-Ta-Tis-T1 N0), pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0 N0), cancer-specific survival and overall survival were investigated.pOR and pCR were achieved in 378 (45%; 95% CI 42, 49) and 207 (25%; 95% CI 22, 28) patients, respectively. Patients treated with 4 cycles of NAC had higher pOR (49% vs 42%, p=0.03) and pCR (28% vs 21%, p=0.02) rates compared to those treated with 3 cycles. This effect was confirmed on multivariable logistic regression analysis (pOR OR 1.46 p=0.008, pCR OR 1.57, p=0.007). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, 4 cycles of NAC were significantly associated with overall survival (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49, 0.94; p=0.02) but not with cancer-specific survival (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50, 1.04; p=0.08).Four cycles of NAC achieved better pathological response and survival compared to 3 cycles. These findings may aid clinicians in counseling patients and serve as a benchmark for prospective trials. Prospective validation of these findings and assessment of cumulative toxicity derived from an increased number of cycles are needed.

Introduction: The treatment landscape in locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has evolved with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first line (1L) and platinum-refractory settings and with the recent approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients achieving disease control with platinum-containing regimens. Oncology provider perspectives and decision-making processes regarding aUC management, especially with the integration of recently approved strategies, such as maintenance therapy, have not been well-described. Patients and Methods: Qualitative interview study with US oncologists and oncology nurses in academic and community settings in August 2020. Interviews explored decision-making around aUC 1L treatment eligibility determinants and selection, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing practices, and use of maintenance therapy. Thematic analysis was used to identify drivers of 1L treatment decisions. Results: Eighteen oncologists (women, 11%; >15 years in practice, 55%; academic, 39%) and 18 oncology nurses (women, 94%; >15 years in practice, 34%; academic, 50%) participated. Providers preferred platinum-based regimens in 1L setting and reserved 1L ICI monotherapy for frail patients. Providers preferred chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance ICI, as opposed to concurrent combination chemotherapy and ICI, followed by ICI as continuation maintenance. Decision-making was driven by need to adhere to treatment decision-making guidelines, characteristics of the patient, treatment efficacy and patient preference. Conclusion: Providers adhered to guidelines and level I evidence in decision-making in the aUC 1L setting. Future studies should further evaluate barriers to the adoption of standard-of-care strategies and factors impacting decision-making in the real-world setting. Microabstract Treatment decision-making processes for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) are not well defined; therefore, we conducted a qualitative interview study with US oncologists and oncology nurses. Providers preferred platinum-based first-line (1L) chemotherapy regimens followed by switch-maintenance immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) among those without disease progression (reserving 1L ICI monotherapy for frail patients). Overall, providers adhered to guidelines for decision-making in the 1L aUC setting.

Background This study assessed the contrasting genomic profiles from the primary tumors (PTs), metastatic (MET) sites, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) of patients with prostate cancer (PC). Methods A total of 1294 PC tissue specimens and 2462 ctDNA specimens underwent hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). Specimens included tissue from PTs; MET biopsies from bone, liver (LIV), lung (LU), brain (BN), lymph node, and soft tissue sites; and ctDNA. Results Differences in alteration frequencies between PT, MET, and ctDNA specimens for selected genes were observed. TMPRSS2:ERG fusion frequencies were similar between PTs and MET sites (35% vs 33%) but varied among MET sites. Genomic alterations (GAs) in AR were lowest in PTs (2%) and highest in MET sites (from 24% in LU to 50% in LIV). BN had the highest genomic alterations/tumor (8) and enrichment for PTEN GAs. The BRCA2 GA frequency varied from 0% in BN to 15% in LIV. ERBB2 amplification was increased in MET sites in comparison with PTs. RB1 GAs were increased in LIV. Biomarkers potentially associated with an anti-PD(L)1 response included CDK12 GAs (16% in LU) and a microsatellite instability-high status (29% in BN). Analyses of ctDNA featured a broad spectrum of GAs similar to those detected across MET sites. Conclusions CGP of PTs, MET sites, and ctDNA in PC exhibited differences most likely associated with tumor progression, clonal evolution, and exposure to systemic therapies; ctDNA can also capture a broad range of potential therapeutic opportunities for patients with PC.

A number of immunotherapies have been developed and adopted for the treatment of urothelial cancer (encompassing cancers arising from the bladder, urethra, or renal pelvis). For these immunotherapies to positively impact patient outcomes, optimal selection of agents and treatment scheduling, especially in conjunction with existing treatment paradigms, is paramount. Immunotherapies also warrant specific and unique considerations regarding patient management, emphasizing both the prompt identification and treatment of potential toxicities. In order to address these issues, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts in the field of immunotherapy for urothelial cancer. The expert panel developed this clinical practice guideline (CPG) to inform healthcare professionals on important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for urothelial cancer, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with urothelial cancer.

Background Hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 have increased risks of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Active cancer diagnosis and treatment are well‐known risk factors; however, a risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in patients with both cancer and COVID‐19 is lacking. Objectives To assess the incidence of and risk factors for thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19. Methods Among patients with cancer in the COVID‐19 and Cancer Consortium registry (CCC19) cohort study, we assessed the incidence of VTE and ATE within 90 days of COVID‐19–associated hospitalization. A multivariable logistic regression model specifically for VTE was built using a priori determined clinical risk factors. A simplified RAM was derived and internally validated using bootstrap. Results From March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020, 2804 hospitalized patients were analyzed. The incidence of VTE and ATE was 7.6% and 3.9%, respectively. The incidence of VTE, but not ATE, was higher in patients receiving recent anti‐cancer therapy. A simplified RAM for VTE was derived and named CoVID‐TE (Cancer subtype high to very‐high risk by original Khorana score +1, VTE history +2, ICU admission +2, D‐dimer elevation +1, recent systemic anti‐cancer Therapy +1, and non‐Hispanic Ethnicity +1). The RAM stratified patients into two cohorts (low‐risk, 0–2 points, n = 1423 vs. high‐risk, 3+ points, n = 1034) where VTE occurred in 4.1% low‐risk and 11.3% high‐risk patients (c statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63–0.71). The RAM performed similarly well in subgroups of patients not on anticoagulant prior to admission and moderately ill patients not requiring direct ICU admission. Conclusions Hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19 have elevated thrombotic risks. The CoVID‐TE RAM for VTE prediction may help real‐time data‐driven decisions in this vulnerable population.

Motivated by recent presentation of the KEYNOTE-564 interim results for adjuvant pembrolizumab in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, we discuss concepts that can guide patient-specific decision-making in selecting individuals for whom adjuvant therapies should be offered.

First-line chemotherapy for many solid tumors is limited by toxicity. There is a growing interest in maintenance therapy as a strategy for prolonging the benefits of first-line therapy while minimizing toxicity. Maintenance therapy can comprise either continuation of an agent given as part of the first-line regimen (continuation maintenance) or treatment with a new agent (switch maintenance). Maintenance therapy is already established in several solid tumors, including lung, breast, gastric, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment has been shown to prolong duration of response and overall survival, but efficacy is generally restricted to a limited proportion of patients with selected tumors. Thus, efforts are ongoing to determine whether the clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors can be extended using novel treatment schedules and settings, including maintenance therapy. Early- and late-phase clinical trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as switch and continuation maintenance in different tumors, and a range of phase III trials are ongoing. Interpretation of results requires consideration of trial designs, eligibility criteria, and primary endpoints, in addition to biomarker exploration, and assessment of quality of life and cost effectiveness. Findings from ongoing trials will help further define the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as maintenance therapy across a spectrum of solid tumors.

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care in advanced urothelial cancer, but long-term outcomes have remained poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, with their favorable toxicity profiles and noteworthy efficacy, have steered a new era in advanced urothelial cancer, with five agents targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, most patients do not achieve response, whereas immunotherapy-related adverse events may cause morbidity, increased health care use, and—rarely—mortality. Therefore, there is an urgent need for additional therapeutic modalities across the disease spectrum. A plethora of clinical trials are ongoing in various disease settings, including chemotherapy regimens, radiotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, agents targeting additional immune checkpoint pathways, vaccine, cytokines, adoptive cell therapies, as well as targeted and anti-angiogenic agents. Two agents, enfortumab vedotin and erdafitinib, have breakthrough designation by the FDA but are not approved yet (at the time of this paper's preparation). Novel combinations with various treatment modalities and optimal sequencing of active therapies are being investigated in prospective clinical trials. Evaluation of new treatments has met with substantial challenges for many reasons, for example, molecular heterogeneity, clonal evolution, and genomic instability. In the era of precision molecular medicine, and because patients do not respond uniformly to current therapies, there is a growing need for identification and validation of biomarkers that can accurately predict treatment response and assist in patient selection. Here, we review current updates and future directions of experimental therapeutics in urothelial cancer, including examples (but not an exhaustive list) of ongoing clinical trials.

Introduction: Despite advances and new treatment options, advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) remains very challenging to treat and has a poor prognosis. However, deeper knowledge of the molecular ...