Search

Purpose: There is a significant unmet need for new and efficacious therapies in urothelial cancer (UC). To provide recommendations on appropriate clinical trial designs across disease settings in UC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) and the International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG) convened a multidisciplinary, international consensus panel., Methods: Through open communication and scientific debate in small- and whole-group settings, surveying, and responses to clinical questionnaires, the consensus panel developed recommendations on optimal definitions of the disease state, end points, trial design, evaluations, sample size calculations, and pathology considerations for definitive studies in low- and intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), high-risk NMIBC, muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, and metastatic UC. The expert panel also solicited input on the recommendations through presentations and public discussion during an open session at the 2021 Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Think Tank (held virtually)., Results: The consensus panel developed a set of stage-specific bladder cancer clinical trial design recommendations, which are summarized in the table that accompanies this text., Conclusion: These recommendations developed by the SITC-IBCG Bladder Cancer Clinical Trial Design consensus panel will encourage uniformity among studies and facilitate drug development in this disease.

Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has proven survival benefits for patients with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, yet its role for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) remains undefined. We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial of NAC with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin (GC) for patients with high-risk UTUC before extirpative surgery to evaluate response, survival, and tolerability., Methods: Eligible patients with defined criteria for high-risk localized UTUC received four cycles of split-dose GC before surgical resection and lymph node dissection. The primary study end point was rate of pathologic response (defined as < ypT2N0). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability., Results: Among 57 patients evaluated, 36 (63%) demonstrated pathologic response (95% CI, 49 to 76). A complete pathologic response (ypT0N0) was noted in 11 patients (19%). Fifty-one patients (89%) tolerated at least three complete cycles of split-dose GC, 27 patients (47%) tolerated four complete cycles, and all patients proceeded to surgery. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, 2- and 5-year PFS rates were 89% (95% CI, 81 to 98) and 72% (95% CI, 59 to 87), while 2- and 5-year OS rates were 93% (95% CI, 86 to 100) and 79% (95% CI, 67 to 94), respectively. Pathologic complete and partial responses were associated with improved PFS and OS compared with nonresponders (≥ ypT2N any; 2-year PFS 100% and 95% v 76%, P < .001; 2-year OS 100% and 100% v 80%, P < .001)., Conclusion: NAC with split-dose GC for high-risk UTUC is a well-tolerated, effective therapy demonstrating evidence of pathologic response that is associated with favorable survival outcomes. Given that these survival outcomes are superior to historical series, these data support the use of NAC as a standard of care for high-risk UTUC, and split-dose GC is a viable option for NAC.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is one of the most common malignancies. Patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk disease can be treated with intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, a vaccine against tuberculosis. However, many of these patients will experience tumor recurrence, despite appropriate treatment. 1 The standard of care in these patients is radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion. 2 Patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) have traditionally faced 2 main treatment options: RC and urinary diversion, as in Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-unresponsive Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, or alternatively, trimodal therapy comprising maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor plus chemoradiation. 3 For patients with MIBC and clinical (c)T2-T4a, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) preceding RC is supported by Level 1 evidence with a modest 5-year overall survival benefit of 5% with cisplatin-based regimens. 4-9 A number of factors preclude MIBC patients from standard treatment options. For example, patients with serious comorbidities might be unable to tolerate general anesthesia, while others might be unwilling to adapt to the lifestyle changes after RC. 10-12 Likewise, patients with extensive carcinoma in situ or poor bladder function might not be optimal candidates for trimodal therapy or be prepared for the ongoing risk that salvage RC might be ultimately required. Reasons for the underuse of NAC range from the fear of delaying potentially curative surgery in nonresponders to patient ineligibility to cisplatin-based NAC. 13,14 Despite best efforts, in both surgical and bladder-sparing approaches, the 5-year overall survival in treated patients with MIBC is only 35% to 50%. 3,15 Strategies to improve overall prognosis as well as to reduce the indications of RC are desperately needed. Trial results have demonstrated the unprecedented ability of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to induce durable remissions in some patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. 16-20 Furthermore, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have shown to be better tolerated than traditional chemotherapy. 16 These successful results have spearheaded the research on these agents in earlier curative settings, with the shared goal of improving overall outcomes, and potentially avoid surgery in patients who show complete response (pT0). Strategies to enhance the immune response by combining immunotherapy with immune sensitizers such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy or radiation are on the rise., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) that progressed on checkpoint inhibition (CPI)., Patients and Methods: A phase I expansion cohort of patients with mUC who received prior CPI was treated with cabozantinib 40 mg/day and nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary goal was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v.1.1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability., Results: Twenty-nine out of 30 patients enrolled were evaluable for efficacy. Median follow-up was 22.2 months. Most patients (86.7%) received prior chemotherapy and all patients received prior CPI (median seven cycles). ORR was 16.0%, with one complete response and three partial responses (PR). Among 4 responders, 2 were primary refractory, 1 had a PR, and 1 had stable disease on prior CPI. Median DoR was 33.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.7-33.5], median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.5), and median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 5.8-19.5). CaboNivo decreased immunosuppressive subsets such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and increased potential antitumor immune subsets such as nonclassical monocytes and effector T cells. A lower percentage of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSC) and polymorphonuclear MDSCs, lower CTLA-4 and TIM-3 expression on Tregs, and higher effector CD4+ T cells at baseline were associated with better PFS and/or OS., Conclusions: CaboNivo was clinically active, well tolerated, and favorably modulated peripheral blood immune subsets in patients with mUC refractory to CPI., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

The role of adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma is rapidly evolving. To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved sunitinib and pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting for renal cell carcinoma and nivolumab for urothelial carcinoma based on disease-free survival benefit. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration held a joint workshop with the National Cancer Institute and the Society of Urologic Oncology in 2017 to harmonize design elements, including eligibility and radiologic assessments across adjuvant trials in renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. Considerations from the discussion at these workshops led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to draft guidances to help inform subsequent adjuvant trial design for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. Patient-centered decision-making is crucial when determining therapeutic choices in the adjuvant setting; utility functions can be used to help quantify each patient's goals, values, and risk/benefit trade-offs to ensure that the decision regarding adjuvant therapy is informed by their preferences and the evolving outcomes data.

The success of the use of novel therapies in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma has contributed to growing interest in evaluating these therapies at earlier stages of the disease. However, trials evaluating these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting must have clearly defined study elements and appropriately selected end points to ensure the applicability of the trial and enable interpretation of the study results. To advance the development of rational trial design, a public workshop jointly sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network convened in August 2019. Clinicians, clinical trialists, radiologists, biostatisticians, patients, advocates and other stakeholders discussed key elements and end points when designing trials of neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), identifying opportunities to refine eligibility, design and end points for neoadjuvant trials in MIBC. Although pathological complete response (pCR) is already being used as a co-primary end point, both individual-level and trial-level surrogacy for time-to-event end points, such as event-free survival or overall survival, remain incompletely characterized in MIBC. Additionally, use of pCR is limited by heterogeneity in pathological evaluation and the fact that the magnitude of pCR improvement that might translate into a meaningful clinical benefit remains unclear. Given existing knowledge gaps, capture of highly granular patient-related, tumour-related and treatment-related characteristics in the current generation of neoadjuvant MIBC trials will be critical to informing the design of future trials., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Purpose: A prognostic model for overall survival of post-platinum patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is necessary as existing models were constructed in the chemotherapy setting., Materials and Methods: Patient level data were used from phase I/II trials evaluating PD-L1 inhibitors following platinum based chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The derivation data set consisted of 2 phase I/II trials evaluating atezolizumab (405). Two phase I/II trials that evaluated avelumab (242) and durvalumab (198) comprised the validation data sets. Cox regression analyses evaluated the association of candidate prognostic factors with overall survival. Stepwise selection was used to select an optimal model using the derivation data set. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in the avelumab and durvalumab data sets., Results: The 5 prognostic factors identified in the optimal model using the atezolizumab derivation data set were ECOG-PS (1 vs 0, HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.36-2.36), liver metastasis (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.20-2.00), platelet count (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.54-3.18), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.57-2.40) and lactate dehydrogenase (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-1.99). There was robust discrimination of survival between low, intermediate and high risk groups. The c-statistic was 0.692 in the derivation and 0.671 and 0.773 in the avelumab and durvalumab validation data sets, respectively. A web based interactive tool was developed to calculate the expected survival probabilities based on risk factors., Conclusions: A validated 5-factor model has satisfactory prognostic performance for survival across 3 PD-L1 inhibitors to treat metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy and may assist in stratification, interpreting and designing trials incorporating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the post-platinum setting.

Purpose: We assessed the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib and nivolumab (CaboNivo) and CaboNivo plus ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and other genitourinary (GU) malignances., Patients and Methods: Patients received escalating doses of CaboNivo or CaboNivoIpi. The primary objective was to establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Fifty-four patients were enrolled at eight dose levels with a median follow-up time of 44.6 months; data cutoff was January 20, 2020. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 75% and 87% of patients treated with CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi, respectively, and included fatigue (17% and 10%, respectively), diarrhea (4% and 7%, respectively), and hypertension (21% and 10%, respectively); grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs included hepatitis (0% and 13%, respectively) and colitis (0% and 7%, respectively). The RP2D was cabozantinib 40 mg/d plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg for CaboNivo and cabozantinib 40 mg/d, nivolumab 3 mg/kg, and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg for CaboNivoIpi. ORR was 30.6% (95% CI, 20.0% to 47.5%) for all patients and 38.5% (95% CI, 13.9% to 68.4%) for patients with mUC. Median DoR was 21.0 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 24.1 months) for all patients and not reached for patients with mUC. Median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.9 months) for all patients and 12.8 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 24.1 months) for patients with mUC. Median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 18.8 months) for all patients and 25.4 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 41.6 months) for patients with mUC., Conclusion: CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi demonstrated manageable toxicities with durable responses and encouraging survival in patients with mUC and other GU tumors. Multiple phase II and III trials are ongoing for these combinations.

Background: Anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death 1 antibodies have shown clinical activity in platinum-treated metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in regulatory approval of several agents, including avelumab (anti-PD-L1). We report ≥2-year follow-up data for avelumab treatment and exploratory subgroup analyses in patients with urothelial carcinoma., Methods: Patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pooled from two cohorts of the phase Ib JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial, received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal. End points included best overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST V.1.1, overall survival (OS) and safety. Post hoc analyses included objective response rates (ORRs) in subgroups defined by established high-risk/poor-prognosis characteristics and association between time to response and outcome., Results: 249 patients received avelumab; efficacy was assessed in 242 postplatinum patients. Median follow-up was 31.9 months (range 24-43), and median treatment duration was 2.8 months (range 0.5-42.8). The confirmed ORR was 16.5% (95% CI 12.1% to 21.8%; complete response in 4.1% and partial response in 12.4%). Median duration of response was 20.5 months (95% CI 9.7 months to not estimable). Median PFS was 1.6 months (95% CI 1.4 to 2.7 months) and the 12-month PFS rate was 16.8% (95% CI 11.9% to 22.4%). Median OS was 7.0 months (95% CI 5.9 to 8.5 months) and the 24-month OS rate was 20.1% (95% CI 15.2% to 25.4%). In post hoc exploratory analyses, avelumab showed antitumor activity in high-risk subgroups, including elderly patients and those with renal insufficiency or upper tract disease; ORRs were numerically lower in patients with liver metastases or low albumin levels. Objective response achieved by 3 months versus later was associated with longer OS (median not reached (95% CI 18.9 months to not estimable) vs 7.1 months (95% CI 5.2 to 9.0 months)). Safety findings were consistent with previously reported 6-month analyses., Conclusions: After ≥2 years of follow-up, avelumab showed prolonged efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-treated advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, including high-risk subgroups. Survival appeared longer in patients who responded within 3 months. Long-term safety findings were consistent with earlier reports with avelumab treatment in this patient population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ABA has no relationships to disclose. JAE has no relationships to disclose. JRI has received research funding from Aileron Therapeutics, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Merck and Co., Novartis, Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Roche, and TESARO. MA has no relationships to disclose. MSG reports having stocks and other ownership interests in Caremission and WCCT Global; has received research funding from AbbVie, Acetylon, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Amgen, Array BioPharma, BeiGene, BioLineRx, Calithera Biosciences, CanBas, Celgene, Celldex, Corcept Therapeutics, CtyomX Therapeutics, Deciphera, Driver Group, Endocyte, ESSA, Five Prime Therapeutics, FujiFilm, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Halozyme, Hengrui Therapeutics, Inanovate, Incyte, Lilly, Lilly/ImClone, MabVax, Macrogenics, MedImmune, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Merrimack, Millennum, Minneamrita Therapeutics, Nektar, Novartis, Novita Pharmaceuticals, OncoMed, Pfizer, Phoenix Biotech, Plexxikon, Proderm IQ, Samumed, Seattle Genetics, Sirtex Medical, Strategia Therapeutics, Syndax, SynDevRx, TESARO, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Toray Industries, TRACON Pharma, Trovagene, and Verastem; and reports patents, royalties or other intellectual property for patient-on-patient selection for clinical trials. RA has no relationships to disclose. TG has received research funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. LD has no relationships to disclose. K-WL has received research funding from Array BioPharma, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Five Prime Therapeutics, Green Cross Corp., LSK BioPharma, MacroGenics, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Pharmacyclics. MHT reports serving as a consultant or advisor for ArQule, Array BioPharma, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Loxo, and Novartis; and is a member of a speaker’s bureau for Bristol Myers Squibb, and Eisai. PS reports serving as a consultant or advisor for Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Ellipses Pharma, Epizyme, Ipsen, Lilly, Loxo, PIQUR Therapeutics, and Plexxikon; and has received research funding from Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, CoBioRes, Eisai, Exelixis, G1 Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Plexxikon. DW reports serving as a consultant or advisor for Merck and Co.; and has received reimbursement for travel, accommodation and expenses from Merck and Co. AR has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; reports serving as a consultant or advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received research funding from Novartis and Pfizer; and has received reimbursement for travel, accommodation and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. JM reports employment at EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc.; a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. GP reports employment at EMD Serono, Inc.; a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. MR reports employment at EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc.; a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. JLG has received research funding from Astellas/Medivation, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono (a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Incyte, Janssen, Merck & Co, Immunity Bio, and Pfizer. MRP is a member of a speaker’s bureau for Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, and Taiho Pharmaceutical., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cabozantinib is a multikinase inhibitor of MET, VEGFR, AXL, and RET, which also has an effect on the tumour immune microenvironment by decreasing regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. In this study, we examined the activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma., Methods: This study was an open-label, single-arm, three-cohort phase 2 trial done at the National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD, USA). Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had histologically confirmed urothelial carcinoma or rare genitourinary tract histologies, Karnofsky performance scale index of 60% or higher, and documented disease progression after at least one previous line of platinum-based chemotherapy (platinum-refractory). Cohort one included patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Two additional cohorts that enrolled in parallel (patients with bone-only urothelial carcinoma metastases and patients with rare histologies of the genitourinary tract) were exploratory. Patients received cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate by RECIST in cohort one. Response was assessed in all patients who met the eligibility criteria and who received at least 8 weeks of therapy. All patients who received at least one dose of cabozantinib were included in the safety analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01688999., Findings: Between Sept 28, 2012, and Oct, 20, 2015, 68 patients were enrolled on the study (49 in cohort one, six in cohort two, and 13 in cohort three). All patients received at least one dose of cabozantinib. The median follow-up was 61·2 months (IQR 53·8-70·0) for the 57 patients evaluable for response. In the 42 evaluable patients in cohort one, there was one complete response and seven partial responses (objective response rate 19%, 95% CI 9-34). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (six [9%] patients), hypertension (five [7%]), proteinuria (four [6%]), and hypophosphataemia (four [6%]). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Cabozantinib has single-agent clinical activity in patients with heavily pretreated, platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma with measurable disease and bone metastases and is generally well tolerated. Cabozantinib has innate and adaptive immunomodulatory properties providing a rationale for combining cabozantinib with immunotherapeutic strategies., Funding: National Cancer Institute Intramural Program and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To harmonize eligibility criteria and radiographic disease assessments in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)., Methods: National experts in bladder cancer clinical trial research, including medical and urologic oncologists, radiologists, biostatisticians, and patient advocates, convened at a public workshop on November 28, 2017, to discuss eligibility, radiographic entry criteria, and assessment of disease recurrence in adjuvant clinical trials in patients with MIBC., Results: The key workshop conclusions for adjuvant MIBC clinical trials included the following points: (1) patients with urothelial carcinoma with divergent histologic differentiation should be allowed to enroll; (2) neoadjuvant chemotherapy is defined as at least 3 cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy; (3) patients with muscle-invasive, upper-tract urothelial carcinoma should be included in adjuvant trials of MIBC; (4) patients with severe renal insufficiency can enroll into trials using agents that are not renally excreted; (5) patients with microscopic surgical margins can be included; (6) patients should undergo a standard bilateral lymph node dissection prior to enrollment; (7) computed tomographic (CT) imaging should be performed within 4 weeks prior to enrollment. For patients with renal insufficiency who cannot undergo CT imaging with contrast, noncontrast chest CT and magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis with gadolinium should be done; (8) biopsy of indeterminate lesions to evaluate for malignant disease should be done when feasible; (9) a uniform approach to evaluate indeterminate radiographic lesions when biopsy is not feasible should be included in any trial design; (10) a uniform approach to determining the date of recurrence is important in interpreting adjuvant trial results; and (11) new high-grade, upper-tract primary tumors and new MIBC tumors should be considered recurrence events., Conclusions and Relevance: A uniform approach to eligibility criteria, definitions of no evidence of disease, and definitions of disease recurrence may lead to more consistent interpretations of adjuvant trial results in MIBC.

The SIU (Société Internationale d'Urologie)-ICUD (International Consultation on Urologic Diseases) working group on systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer has summarized the most recent findings on the aforementioned topic and came to conclusions and recommendations according to the evidence published. In Europe and the United States, treatment for metastatic UC has changed a great deal recently, mainly involving a move from chemotherapy to immune checkpoint blockers. This is particularly true in platinum-refractory disease, where supportive randomized data exist. Five checkpoint blockers have been approved in this setting by the FDA: avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab have been approved in Europe.

Purpose: Although immunotherapy has a long history in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, its use was limited to intravesical therapy for nonmuscle invasive disease. The development of immune checkpoint blockers for systemic delivery has expanded the application of immunotherapy to advanced metastatic urothelial cancers., Materials and Methods: The PubMed® database was searched for publications regarding immune checkpoint blockers for the treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma. Relevant congress abstracts were identified through searches of individual congress websites., Results: A summary of the biology and immunology of urothelial carcinoma provides context to aid in discussing key data pertaining to immune checkpoint blockers that are approved and in development. We address immune mediated adverse events that are unique to immunotherapies and review diagnostic tools that may be useful to identify patients who would most benefit from immunotherapy., Conclusions: Immunotherapies for urothelial carcinoma have shown clinical efficacy in select patients as well as a manageable safety profile. Studies are ongoing with the aim of expanding the proof of efficacy in metastatic disease and providing additional treatment options for patients with earlier stages of urothelial carcinoma., (Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immunotherapy with programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors has expanded a previously limited pool of effective treatment options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, particularly those with recurring or refractory disease and those who are ineligible for cisplatin. This review reports key findings from completed and ongoing clinical trials that highlight the potential of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in urothelial carcinoma. A literature search was performed of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and selected annual congress abstracts. Prospective studies, reviews, editorials, and descriptions of ongoing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 studies in bladder cancer were included. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies have shown efficacy and safety across patient subgroups with urothelial carcinoma, including those with poor prognostic factors. Efficacy was similar across different anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Although these antibodies have demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with urothelial carcinoma, clinicians are currently unable to predict which patients may derive benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have shown favorable clinical activity and tolerability in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum-based therapy or who are ineligible for cisplatin. The activity of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is now also being studied as first-line monotherapy in cisplatin-eligible patients in combination with chemotherapy as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy, and in earlier disease states, such as muscle-invasive and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Better predictive tools to define target patient populations are needed, as are further investigations to define optimal combinations or sequencing of treatments., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the management of metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) including recent advances in targeted and immune therapies as an update to the 2014 joint international consultation on UTUC, co-sponsored by the Société Internationale d'Urologie and International Consultation on Urological Diseases., Methods: A PubMed database search was performed between January 2013 and May 2016 related to the treatment of metastatic UTUC, and 54 studies were selected for inclusion., Results: The management of patients with metastatic UTUC is primarily an extrapolation from evidence guiding the management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. The first-line therapy for metastatic UTUC is platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Standard second-line therapies are limited and ineffective. Patients with UTUC who progress following platinum-based chemotherapy are encouraged to participate in clinical trials. Recent advances in genomic profiling present exciting opportunities to guide the use of targeted therapy. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has demonstrated extremely promising results. Retrospective studies provide support for post-chemotherapy surgery in appropriately selected patients., Conclusions: The management of metastatic UTUC requires a multi-disciplinary approach. New insights from genomic profiling using targeted therapies, novel immunotherapies, and surgery represent promising avenues for further therapeutic exploration.

Background: In this trial we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of TRC105, a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD105 (endoglin) in patients with advanced, previously treated urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Patients and Methods: Patients received TRC105 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary end points included safety, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). CD105 expression was evaluated using immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a separate cohort of 50 UC patients. Biomarker studies included immune subsets, circulating tumor cells (CTCs), circulating endothelial cells (CECs), circulating endothelial progenitor cells (CEPs), and osteopontin., Results: Of 13 patients enrolled, 12 were evaluable for OS and PFS. The 3-month PFS probability was 18.2% (median PFS, 1.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-2.1 months). This met the criterion for ending accrual on the basis of the 2-stage design. Median OS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 3.3-17.0 months). IHC for CD105 scores was not associated with T stage (P = .26) or presence of lymph nodes (P = .64). Baseline levels of regulatory T and B cells, CEPs, and changes in CEC level after TRC105 exhibited trends toward an association with PFS or OS. CTCs pre- and post-TRC105 were detected in 4 of 4 patients., Conclusion: Although TRC105 was well tolerated, it did not improve 6-month PFS in heavily pretreated patients with advanced UC. CD105 staining was present in 50% of UC tumors at different intensities. Our observations on the pharmacodynamic significance of immune subsets, CECs, and CTCs warrant further study., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current study compared the incidence of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs) in patients with metastatic or unresectable urothelial carcinoma (UC) who were treated with gemcitabine and carboplatin (GCb); gemcitabine, carboplatin, and bevacizumab (GCbBev); or gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCis)., Methods: Patients with UC who were treated with GCbBev on protocol were analyzed prospectively and 2 contemporary control cohorts receiving GCb or GCis were evaluated retrospectively. VTE was defined as either venous or arterial (myocardial infarctions or cerebral vascular accidents) thrombosis. VTEs were considered to be related to treatment if they occurred during treatment or within 4 weeks of the completion of treatment. Associations with chemotherapy regimen were tested using either the Fisher exact test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Clinical factors associated with VTEs were analyzed using conditional logistic regression stratified by treatment regimen., Results: Among 198 patients, VTEs occurred in 13 of 51 patients treated with GCbBev (26%), 22 of 92 patients treated with GCb (24%), and 8 of 55 patients treated with GCis (15%). Patient characteristics were significantly different between the treatment cohorts in terms of age, prior cystectomy, tumor location near pelvic vessels, Khorana risk group, and receipt of antiplatelet therapy. The incidence of VTE and type of VTE (arterial vs venous) did not differ by type of chemotherapy. Prior cystectomy was associated with an increased risk of VTE (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.9 [P = .047])., Conclusions: The incidence of VTE in Cis-treated patients was similar to prior reports. However, the VTE rate in Cb-treated patients was > 20%, a figure not previously defined in patients with UC and higher than expected. This high incidence of both Cis-related and Cb-related VTEs warrants greater awareness by treating physicians and deserves further study. Cancer 2016;122:712-721. © 2015 American Cancer Society., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

Despite recent advances in the identification of genomic alterations that lead to urothelial oncogenesis in vitro, patients with advanced urothelial carcinomas continue to have poor clinical outcomes. In the present review, we focus on targeted therapies that have yielded the most promising results alone or combined with traditional chemotherapy, including the antiangiogenesis agent bevacizumab, the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 antibody trastuzumab, and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib. We also describe ongoing and developing clinical trials that use innovative approaches, including dose-dense scheduling of singular chemotherapy combinations, prospective screening of tumor tissues for mutational targets and biomarkers to predict chemosensitivity before the determination of the therapeutic regimen, and novel agents that target proteins in the immune checkpoint regulation pathway (programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] and anti-PD-ligand 1) that have shown significant potential in preclinical models and early clinical trials. New agents and targeted therapies, alone or combined with traditional chemotherapy, will only be validated through accrual to developing clinical trials that aim to translate these therapies into individualized treatments and improved survival rates in urothelial carcinoma., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose of Review: Inhibition of immune escape mechanisms, such as the programed death-ligand 1 pathway, has demonstrated rapid, durable responses in multiple tumor types, including advanced urothelial carcinoma. This review discusses emerging immunotherapies for urothelial carcinoma in various stages of clinical development., Recent Findings: Urothelial carcinoma has a high mutational burden, which may increase the number of tumor antigens and potentially enhance the ability of the immune system to recognize tumor cells as foreign. However, urothelial carcinoma can evade the immune system by downregulating tumor-antigen presentation, upregulating various immune checkpoints, and inactivating cytotoxic T cells. Immunotherapies for urothelial carcinoma target each of these steps to restore immune-mediated cytotoxicity. Many of these agents are in clinical trials for urothelial carcinoma., Summary: Immunotherapies are active in urothelial carcinoma, but only in a fraction of patients, implying the presence of persistent immune escape. Identifying the mechanisms of immune escape and developing rational combinatorial regimens may make the benefit of immunotherapy accessible to a broader population.