Exploratory analysis of responders from the phase 3 EV-302 trial of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC).
Abstract
4502 Background: EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 (NCT04223856) showed significant PFS and OS benefits for pts with previously untreated la/mUC treated with EV+P vs chemo, which established EV+P as the SOC in this population. This exploratory analysis presents efficacy and safety results for responders, focusing on pts with confirmed complete response (cCR). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive EV (1.25 mg/kg; Days 1 and 8; IV) + P (200 mg; Day 1; IV) or chemo (gemcitabine + cisplatin/carboplatin); all Q3W. Primary endpoints were PFS by BICR and OS. Secondary endpoints included ORR, DOR, and safety. An exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in pts with cCR. A genAI tool (01/09/25; Pfizer; GPT-4o) developed the 1 st draft; authors assume content responsibility. Results: Median follow-up (data cutoff: Aug 8, 2024) was 29.1 mo (95% CI, 28.5-29.9). 886 pts were randomized to EV+P (n = 442) vs chemo (n = 444). Confirmed ORR (CR+PR) was 67.5% with EV+P and 44.2% with chemo; cCR was 30.4% and 14.5%, respectively. Baseline characteristics of responders were generally consistent with the ITT population. Among pts with cCR in the EV+P arm, 38 (28.6%) had upper tract disease and 20 (15%) had liver metastases. For pts with cCR, mPFS by BICR was not reached (NR) with EV+P and 26.9 mo with chemo (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.61); mOS was NR with both EV+P and chemo (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.80). Median duration of CR was NR for EV+P and 15.2 mo for chemo. Efficacy data are in the Table. Among pts with cCR in the EV+P arm, the median number of cycles was 13 (range, 1-50) for EV and 27 (range, 1-35) for P; median treatment (tx) duration was 22.0 mo (range, 0.7-35.4). Safety among responders was generally consistent with previous reports. TRAEs leading to dose modification in pts with cCR are in the Table. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 61.7% and 71.9% of pts with cCR in the EV+P and chemo arms, respectively. EV tx-related AESIs and P tx-emergent AEOSI profiles were generally consistent with previous reports. There were no tx-related deaths among pts with cCR. Conclusions: In the EV+P arm, the proportion of pts achieving cCR was twice that in the chemo arm. Consistent with the ITT data, EV+P reduced the risk of progression or death vs chemo in pts achieving cCR, with appropriate dose modifications. These data reinforce EV+P as the SOC for 1L tx of pts with la/mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT04223856 . EV+PcCR: n=133 ChemocCR: n=64 Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (NE-NE) 26.9 (16.6-NE) 24-mo PFS rate, % (95% CI) 78.2 (69.8-84.6) 53.7 (40.0-65.5) Median OS, mo (95% CI) NR (39.3-NE) NR (32.1-NE) 24-mo OS rate, % (95% CI) 95.4 (90.0-97.9) 85.8 (74.6-92.4) Median DOCR, mo (95% CI) NR (NE-NE) 15.2 (10.3-NE) 24-mo cCR rate, % (95% CI) 74.3 (65.1-81.4) 43.2 (28.7-56.9) TRAEs leading to dose modification (n, %)Dose interruption of EVDose reduction of EVDose interruption of P 94 (70.7)86 (64.7)86 (64.7) ---
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Shilpa Gupta
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Taussig Cancer Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA
Jens Bedke
Eva Mayr-Stihl Cancer Center, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Michiel Simon Van Der Heijden
Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Begoña P. Valderrama
Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain
Eiji Kikuchi
Jeannie Hoffman-Censits
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...
Gopa Iyer
Christof Vulsteke
Integrated Cancer Center Ghent, AZ Maria Middelares, Ghent, Belgium
Steffen Rausch
Se Hoon Park
Alexandra Drakaki
Waddah Arafat
Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Umang Swami
Division of Medical Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA
Ignacio Duran
Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain
Jian-Ri Li
Blanca Homet Moreno
Merck, Rahway, NJ
Seema Rao Gorla
Astellas Pharma, Inc., Northbrook, IL
Xuesong Yu
Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA
Yi-Tsung Lu
Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA
Thomas Powles
Department of Medical Oncology Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK