FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
There remains of large subset of patients who are eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line, and a valid question is whether patients might benefit from receipt of PD-1/PD-L1 antibody therapy in this setting either alone or in combination with chemotherapy. This is the goal of two large randomized phase 3 trials with very similar designs. The first, NCT02853305, randomizes patients with locally unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma to gemcitabine/cisplatin vs. gemcitabine/cisplatin plus pembrolizumab vs. pembrolizumab alone for patients eligible for cisplatin. For those patients who are cisplatin ineligible, carboplatin may serve as a replacement. Another trial with a similar design evaluates gemcitabine/cisplatin vs. gemcitabine/cisplatin plus atezolizumab vs. atezolizumab alone (NCT02807636). Both of these trials utilize the dual primary endpoints progression-free and overall survival. Although these trials could discover PD-1/PD-L1 therapy to offer improved progression-free and/or overall survival outcomes in the first-line setting, one must recognize that response rates with immuno-oncology agents alone are not apt to be as robust as with chemotherapy. Whereas, response rates range in the 15-20% range for PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, cisplatin-based combinations offer an approximate 50% response rate.8 Although response is generally short-lived with cytotoxic chemotherapy, the value of such a response cannot be easily dismissed for a patient with rapidly progressive symptomatic disease, especially one with a visceral crisis. These patients may have one opportunity for response, so choosing a therapeutic regimen with high response rates in the first-line could be optimal over choosing a less toxic and durable checkpoint inhibitor.
One interesting strategy in the first-line setting is to study combination immuno-oncology therapy. The trial of durvalumab plus tremelimumab, a CTLA4 antibody, vs. durvalumab alone (NCT02516241) is primarily evaluating progression-free and overall survival, but it has promise to provide insight on whether combination immuno-oncology strategies might offer improved response rates. Another important trial that will directly test the question of combination immuno-oncology agents vs. chemotherapy in this first-line setting compares nivolumab plus ipilumumab versus standard of care gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy (NCT03036098). It is with the promise of this type of strategy that has patients and clinicians alike excited about the future of immuno-oncology agents in the first-line metastatic setting.
With all these high yield trials ongoing, it is likely that you have access to at least one of the above first-line trials with immuno-oncology agents in your vicinity. Only through enrollment of patients into clinical trials of this sort will we be able to move promising agents earlier in the treatment paradigm where there is promise for even greater impact. Naturally, a future letter from my desk will focus on even earlier use in the high-risk adjuvant setting. The theme of immuno-oncology early and often for this disease continues.
Highlighted First-line Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Trials:
- Rosenberg JE et al. Lancet 2016; 387:1909-20.
- Sharma P et al. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:312-22.
- Bellmunt J et al. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:1015-26.
- Massard C et al. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:3119-25.
- Apolo A et al. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (suppl; abstr4514)
- Balar A et al. Lancet 2017; 389:67-76.
- Balar A et al. ESMO 2016; LBA32_PR.
- von der Maase et al. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:3068-77.