Shilpa Gupta, MD, on Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: Phase III MAIN-CAV Trial
ASCO 2026
Shilpa Gupta, MD, of Taussig Cancer Institute, discusses findings from the phase III MAIN-CAV study (Alliance A032001) of maintenance cabozantinib and avelumab vs avelumab after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (Abstract 4514).
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
In locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer, platinum based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for decades until recently when EV pembro showed that it was better than platinum in the frontline setting. Back in 2020, maintenance avelumab was approved for patients who did not progress on frontline platinum based chemotherapy and it improved survival compared to best supportive care. We wanted to build upon the avelumab backbone to see if we can help patients who don't have durable response and we designed this cooperative group trial to build on avelumab backbone with a VEGF TKI, cabozantinib or the MAIN-CAV trial was built on that. It was a very timely study at the time. We designed it to enroll 654 patients and randomized them to maintenance avelumab versus maintenance avelumab and cabozantinib, limiting the total duration of two years for each arm. Primary endpoint was overall survival and we hypothesized that we could build upon the median 21 month overall survival with the avelumab to 28 months with combination. And while the planned enrollment was for 654 patients, unfortunately we could not accrue the patient because of the new standard with EV and pembro. So we closed the trial after 68 patients were enrolled because EV pembro was approved in the US and we analyzed the patients enrolled and we found that you know 33 and 35 patients were enrolled in avelumab versus avelumab cabozantinib arm. Unfortunately we did not see differences in the progression-free survival or overall survival. But this is an underpowered study which was closed prematurely. So it's difficult to make that determination. But in the limited numbers we have, we did not see a difference and we did not see that cabozantinib even added to the response rate seen when avelumab. As far as toxicities were concerned, there were no new safety signals and there was more toxicity in the combination arm as expected with an IO and TKI. So at this time, we are working on the translational work for this study to guide future development around VEGF.
The ASCO Post Staff
Asaf Maoz, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Mass General Brigham, and Harvard Medical School, talks about whether prospective assessment of CA 19-9 has utility as part of pancreatic cancer surveillance among high-risk individuals (Abstract 10527).
Wassim McHayleh, MD, FACP, MBA, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, provides an update from the phase Ib/II ELEVATE trial, an open-label umbrella study. This report focuses on updated safety and preliminary efficacy for elacestrant and capivasertib for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who experienced disease progression on first-line endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibition (Abstract 1098).
Walter Weber, MD, of University Hospital Basel, presents data from the international randomized phase III PREPEC trial (OPBC-02), which found prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) significantly and relevantly improved long-term quality of life—at the cost of a higher risk of loss or replacement of expander or implant—compared to subpectoral IBBR (Abstract 504).
The ASCO Post Staff
Christine Lovly, MD, PhD, FASCO, of City of Hope, offers her thoughs on the findings of the LIBRETTO-432 trial, which found improved event-free survival with adjuvant selpercatinib after definitive therapy for patients with early-stage RET fusion–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Abstract LBA3).
Suneel Kamath, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, discusses a study that found tissue tumor mutation burden (TMB) was a stronger predictor of immunotherapy outcomes than blood-based circulating tumor DNA testing, with high tissue TMB associated with a longer time to treatment failure (Abstract 2580).