Enfortumab vedotin (EV) outcomes with and without immediate prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC).

Authors

null

Vadim S Koshkin

University of California San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA

Vadim S Koshkin , Nicholas Henderson , Deepak Kilari , Tanya Jindal , Omar Alhalabi , Dory Freeman , Arnab Basu , Pedro C. Barata , Mehmet Asim Bilen , Yousef Zakharia , Hamid Emamekhoo , Sumit Shah , Matthew I. Milowsky , Nancy B. Davis , Shilpa Gupta , Christopher J. Hoimes , Petros Grivas , Joaquim Bellmunt , Matthew T Campbell , Ajjai Shivaram Alva

Organizations

University of California San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, DFCI/PCC Fellowship Program - Attendings, Boston, MA, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, Tulane University Medical School, New Orleans, LA, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Stanford Cancer Center, Stanford, CA, University of North Carolina, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, University of Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI

Research Funding

No funding received
None.

Background: EV is FDA-approved in pts with aUC and ≥1 prior therapy line. Data from EV-103 trial indicate robust response to first-line EV/pembrolizumab, suggesting potentially at least additive treatment effect with EV/ICI combination. Given the long half-life of ICIs, pts who start EV treatment immediately after ICI may potentially derive benefit from that therapy sequence. We hypothesized that the last systemic therapy prior to EV would impact outcomes, as pts treated with ICI immediately prior to EV would have superior outcomes relative to pts treated with chemotherapy (chemo). Methods: UNITE is a retrospective study of pts treated with EV at 16 US sites. Pt characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from EMR review at each site. Observed response was determined by investigators for evaluable pts with scans following ≥1 EV dose. Pts treated with EV monotherapy were divided into two groups based on whether they received chemo or ICI as the line of therapy immediately prior to EV, regardless of other therapy received. Chi-squared test was used to assess differences in pt characteristics and ORR while log-rank tests were used for OS and PFS measured from EV start. Results: Among 325 pts treated with EV monotherapy, 247 had chemo or ICI as immediate prior treatment, with 186 pts receiving ICI (Group A) and 61 pts receiving platinum-based chemo (Group B). In 247-pt cohort, ORR to EV was 52% and mPFS and mOS were 6 and 13 mos. Group B pts were younger, had more bone mets and higher Bellmunt risk factors, but were otherwise similar to Group A (Table). Most pts had both prior chemo and ICI in both group A (58%) and group B (84%). Group A pts had shorter time from last treatment (median 1.2 vs 3.2 mo, p<0.01), lower ORR to immediate prior treatment (16% vs 37%, p<0.01) and fewer prior therapy lines (mean 1.9 vs 2.6, p<0.01). Group A had superior ORR (58% vs 37%, p=0.02), mPFS (6.9 vs 4.8 mo, p=0.02) and mOS (15.2 vs 8.8 mo, p=0.01) from EV start vs Group B. Conclusions: Pts with aUC treated with EV had superior outcomes if they received ICI instead of chemo as immediate prior treatment, suggesting the hypothesis that this may represent an optimal therapy sequence or combination. These data need external validation as limitations include retrospective design, lack of randomization, and selection and confounding biases.

Group A (ICI) (N=186)Group B (Chemo) (N=61)P-value
Median Age70660.03
Gender
Female
Male

43 (23%)
143 (77%)

17 (28%)
44 (72%)
0.56
Primary Tumor Site
Bladder
Upper Tact
Urethra
N/A

138 (74%)
42 (23%)
1 (1%)
5 (3%)

43 (70%)
15 (25%)

3 (5%)
0.75
Histology
Pure Urothelial
Variant

121 (65%)
65 (35%)

46 (75%)
15 (25%)
0.18
ECOG PS
0-1
≥ 2
N/A

138 (74%)
41 (22%)
7 (4%)

47 (77%)
14 (23%)
1.0
Baseline Neuropathy63 (34%)23 (38%)0.71
Liver Mets55 (30%)25 (41%)0.14
Bone Mets65 (35%)31 (51%)0.04
Bellmunt Score
0
1
2
3
N/A

34 (18%)
72 (39%)
54 (29%)
16 (9%)
10 (5%)

7 (11%)
17 (28%)
28 (46%)
8 (13%)
1 (2%)
0.01

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Prostate Cancer and Urothelial Carcinoma

Track

Urothelial Carcinoma,Prostate Cancer - Advanced

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr 514)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.514

Abstract #

514

Poster Bd #

K18

Abstract Disclosures