20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pivotal Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin in Urothelial Carcinoma After Platinum and Anti-Programmed Death 1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 Therapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSE

          Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is an incurable disease with limited treatment options, especially for patients who were previously treated with platinum and anti–programmed death 1 or anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) therapy. Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate that targets Nectin-4, which is highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma.

          METHODS

          EV-201 is a global, phase II, single-arm study of enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg (intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were previously treated with platinum chemotherapy and anti–PD-1/L1 therapy. The primary end point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and tolerability.

          RESULTS

          Enfortumab vedotin was administered to 125 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Median follow-up was 10.2 months (range, 0.5 to 16.5 months). Confirmed objective response rate was 44% (95% CI, 35.1% to 53.2%), including 12% complete responses. Similar responses were observed in prespecified subgroups, such as those patients with liver metastases and those with no response to prior anti–PD-1/L1 therapy. Median duration of response was 7.6 months (range, 0.95 to 11.30+ months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (50%), any peripheral neuropathy (50%), alopecia (49%), any rash (48%), decreased appetite (44%), and dysgeusia (40%). No single treatment-related adverse events grade 3 or greater occurred in 10% or more of patients.

          CONCLUSION

          Enfortumab vedotin demonstrated a clinically meaningful response rate with a manageable and tolerable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were previously treated with platinum and anti–PD-1/L1 therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study.

            Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively), and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits Illustrated in the Case of the Binomial

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Oncol
                J. Clin. Oncol
                jco
                jco
                JCO
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                American Society of Clinical Oncology
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                10 October 2019
                29 July 2019
                29 July 2019
                : 37
                : 29
                : 2592-2600
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
                [ 2 ]Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
                [ 3 ]University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
                [ 4 ]New York University Langone Health, New York, NY
                [ 5 ]Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
                [ 6 ]Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
                [ 7 ]Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
                [ 8 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA
                [ 9 ]Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
                [ 10 ]Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
                [ 11 ]Seattle Genetics, Bothell, WA
                [ 12 ]Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL
                [ 13 ]Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT
                Author notes
                Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; e-mail: rosenbj1@ 123456mskcc.org .
                Article
                1901140
                10.1200/JCO.19.01140
                6784850
                31356140
                21bec810-c07a-4d94-805c-968928c505e6
                © 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

                Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 24 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 9, Tables: 9, Equations: 0, References: 24, Pages: 22
                Categories
                GUC, GENITOURINARY: BLADDER AND UROTHELIAL
                RAPID COMMUNICATION
                Genitourinary Cancer
                Custom metadata
                v1

                Comments

                Comment on this article