Advertisement


Enrique Grande, MD, on Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Updated Data From IMvigor130

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Enrique Grande, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses new findings that show initial responses to induction therapy with atezolizumab plus platinum and gemcitabine did not seem to impact overall survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Cisplatin-treated patients appeared to derive a greater benefit with atezolizumab than did carboplatin-treated patients (Abstract 4503).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
Enrique Grande, MD: We are here presenting the post-hoc analysis of the IMvigor130 trial about the overall survival according to the response to the induction chemotherapy, based on platinum, that the patient received from this phase-3 trial. As a brief reminder, the IMvigor130 trial was a phase-3 trial, in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients that were randomized into one of these three arms: chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy, cis/gem, carbo/gem, standard of care at that time; or chemotherapy plus atezolizumab; or another third arm with atezolizumab, the PD-L1 inhibitor, as a single agent. In this post-hoc analysis, we are as considering those patients who were randomized to one of the arms with chemotherapy. They should have received at least four cycles of chemotherapy, of platinum-based chemotherapy. They should have observed a clinical benefit during this induction chemotherapy. It means at least complete response, or partial response, or a stable disease for up to six months on treatment. And they should have also been treated with at least one cycle of maintenance therapy, either with atezolizumab or with placebo matching maintenance therapy. In terms of the overall survival that we got here, the overall survival was counting since week 18, the supposed day one, cycle six of the induction chemotherapy. We analyzed in a retrospective way, two populations: those with a clinical benefit, and those patients in the intention to treat population that progressed during induction chemotherapy. Of course, the prognosis was completely different in between these two populations. What were the main outcomes from this post-hoc analysis? The main outcomes that we observed is that unfortunately, we didn't observe significant difference, clinically speaking and statistically speaking, for those patients we received the combination of chemo plus atezo followed by atezo maintenance, versus those patients in terms of survival that received only chemotherapy. Hazard ratio was 0.84, and the median overall survival in the combination arm followed by the maintenance strategy was 20.5 months, versus 19.6 months in the standard arm. Those patients with the better prognosis, so it means those patients treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine, plus atezolizumab, and those patients with PD-L1 positive expression, they have better prognosis than those patients treated with carbo or those patients with a PD-L1 negative expression in the tumor. But if this is a matter of immunogenicity, we still don't know. We are working on that. The translational research is undergoing this sense. Maybe this is just a matter of prognosis. Another important outcome. What happened in those patients who progressed during the induction chemotherapy? This is the subgroup of patients with the poorest prognosis. The median overall survival for these patients progressing during chemo was only 3.3 months, despite more than 40% of the patients received subsequent lines of treatment, most of them immunotherapy or chemotherapy in the standard control arm. So, there is a clear unmet clinical need on this particular scenario, and it merits to think about if it deserves to give any systemic treatment options for these patients, or at least the current systemic options for these patients that we have so far. Last thing is that the use of enfortumab vedotin, or all their targeted agents like FDFR inhibitors, in this setting was negligible. Very few patients received that, so we cannot really extrapolate or make any conclusion about that. Thank you so much.

Related Videos

Lymphoma

Muhit Özcan, MD, on DLBCL: Now Recruiting Previously Untreated Patients for a Study of Zilovertamab Vedotin Plus Chemotherapy

Muhit Özcan, MD, of Turkey’s Ankara University School of Medicine, discusses waveLINE-007, a two-part study now recruiting in more than 20 locations, to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of the antibody-drug conjugate zilovertamab vedotin in combination with R-CHP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone) in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Efficacy of this regimen will be investigated in the second half of the study (Abstract TPS7589).

Lymphoma

Muhit Özcan, MD, on DLBCL: Early Results on Zilovertamab Vedotin

Muhit Özcan, MD, of Turkey’s Ankara University School of Medicine, discusses phase II findings from the waveLINE-004 study. It showed that the antibody-drug conjugate zilovertamab vedotin had clinically meaningful antitumor activity in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who experienced disease progression after, or have been ineligible for, autologous stem cell transplantation and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (Abstract 7531).

Kidney Cancer
Immunotherapy

Rana R. McKay, MD, and Brian I. Rini, MD, on Clear Cell RCC: New Data From KEYNOTE-426 on Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib vs Sunitinib

Rana R. McKay, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, discuss the 5-year follow-up results with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor plus a VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to demonstrate improved survival outcomes as well as overall response rate vs sunitinib for patients with previously untreated disease (Abstract LBA4501).

Global Cancer Care
Leukemia

Paula Aristizabal, MD, MAS, on Surviving Childhood Leukemia Near the Border of the United States and Mexico

Paula Aristizabal, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, talks about using a health systems strengthening approach to improve leukemia care and survival in a public Mexican hospital in the region of the border between the United States and Mexico. The demonstrated increase in overall survival across a decade after implementation of the program seems to validate the use of such models, not only to improve clinical outcomes, but also to build sustainable hospital capacity, financially and organizationally (Abstract 1502).

Kidney Cancer

Rana R. McKay, MD, and Toni K. Choueiri, MD, on RCC: New Findings on Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Cabozantinib

Rana R. McKay, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, discuss results from the phase III CONTACT-03 study, showing that, for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), adding the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes compared with treatment with cabozantinib alone. In addition, higher toxicities were observed in the combination arm (Abstract LBA4500).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement