Clinical outcomes of enfortumab vedotin (EV) or pembrolizumab (P) interruption in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).
Abstract
e16592 Background: EV–P is a standard first-line therapy for mUC. In routine practice, one agent is frequently discontinued due to toxicity with continuation of the alternate agent as monotherapy (mono). The clinical impact remains unclear. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients (pts) with mUC on EV–P. Pts were stratified by interruption of one agent with continuation of the alternate agent as mono versus uninterrupted EV-P. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using multivariable Cox models adjusted for age, first line EV–P, synchronous metastases, extranodal disease, treatment duration, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Same covariates were used for 1:1 propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-squared tests. Results: Among 159 pts, 36 (23%) interrupted treatment and continued mono, while 123 (77%) received uninterrupted EV-P combination. Baseline characteristics were comparable, including age (74 vs 72 years, p=0.35), first-line use (58.3% vs 56.9%, p=0.88), and extranodal metastases (38.9% vs 36.6%, p=0.80). Median follow-up was 9.5 months (IQR 5–18). irAEs were more frequent in the interruption group (72.2% vs 29.5%, p<0.001). Median treatment duration was longer with interruption (8.6 vs 3.8 months, p<0.001). Among the interrupted cohort, 53% continued P and 47% continued EV. In propensity-matched analysis, interruption was associated with improved PFS (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.25–0.70, p=0.0026) and OS (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09–0.66, p=0.03). Among the interrupted cohort, continuation of P had higher PFS (HR 0.14, p=0.003) and OS (HR 0.28, p=0.01) than continuation of EV monotherapy. Conclusions: In this cohort, discontinuation of one EV–P component with continuation of the other agent as mono was associated with improved survival versus uninterrupted combination. Toxicity-guided treatment de-escalation may achieve durable disease control in selected pts. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes. Variable Interrupted EV or P (N=36) No interruption in EV-P (N=123) P value Baseline demographic characteristics Age at Tx initiation 74.00 (65.75, 80.25) 72.00 (64.00, 77.50) 0.350 Sex 0.623 - Female 25.0% (9) 21.1% (26) - Male 75.0% (27) 78.9% (97) Duration of treatment 8.60 (5.33, 14.98) 3.83 (1.60, 8.32) <0.001 M stage Tx initiation 0.379 No distant metastases (M0) 16.7% (6) 23.6% (29) Metastatic disease present (M1) 83.3% (30) 76.4% (94) Treatment characteristics and discontinuation patterns Adverse events from ICI 72.2% (26) 29.5% (36) <0.001 Pembro discontinuation due to adverse event 51.4% (18) _ Pembro discontinued due to progression 11.4% (4) 27.9% (34) 0.075 Adverse events from EV 72.2%(26) 41.8% (51) 0.001 EV discontinuation due to adverse event 42.9% (15) _ EV discontinued due to progression 34.3% (12) 29.5% (36) 0.739
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (16)
Shahed Abdullah
2University Hospital Galway, Dept of Haematology, Galway, Ireland
Wadih Issa
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Panayiotis Dimitrios Kontoyiannis
Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Mia Hofstad
Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Libin Yan
Lin Lin
Jake Lichterman
Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Charles Jiang
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Qian Qin
Suzanne Cole
From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...
Waddah Arafat
Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Jue Wang
Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences, College of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering
Kevin Dale Courtney
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX
Joseph Vento
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX
Andrew Zhuang Wang
Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Tian Zhang
Division of Hematology‐Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas Texas USA