Study EV-103 cohort H: Neoadjuvant treatment with enfortumab vedotin (EV) monotherapy in cisplatin (cis)-ineligible patients (pts) with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)—3-year efficacy results.

N Nataliya Mar (University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA) D Daniel P. Petrylak (Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT) C Christopher J. Hoimes (Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC) J Jonathan E. Rosenberg (Genitourinary Oncology Service Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York USA) T Thomas W. Flaig (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora) T Theodore Stewart Gourdin (Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC) P Pedro C. Barata (Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland Ohio USA) E Elizabeth Henry (Loyola University, Chicago, IL) M Mehmet Asim Bilen (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...) S Saby George (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY) S Santosh Rao (Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH) V Vasileios J. Assikis (Piedmont Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA) E Earle F Burgess (Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC) B Brian E. Lewis (Tulane University, New Orleans, LA) S Sandy Srinivas S Seema Rao Gorla (Astellas Pharma, Inc., Northbrook, IL) C Changting Meng (Pfizer, Bothell, WA) Y Yalin Zhu (Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA) P Peter H. O'Donnell (University of Chicago, Chicago, IL)

Abstract

4583 Background: For cis-ineligible pts with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection (RC+PLND), no neoadjuvant treatment options have been shown to improve survival, highlighting a clinical need. EV previously demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in cis-ineligible pts with MIBC as neoadjuvant treatment in EV-103 Cohort H. We present updated 3-year efficacy results. Methods: EV-103 Cohort H enrolled cis-ineligible pts with MIBC (cT2-T4aN0M0) and ECOG PS ≤2 who were eligible for RC+PLND. Pts received neoadjuvant EV monotherapy (1.25 mg/kg) on Days 1 and 8 every 21 days for 3 cycles before undergoing RC+PLND. Primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR) rate by central pathology review. Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS) per investigator assessment (INV), OS, and safety. A genAI tool (01/09/25; Pfizer; GPT-4o) developed the 1 st draft; authors assume content responsibility. Results: Overall, 22 pts were enrolled. 86.4% of pts completed all 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EV treatment. Three pts (13.6%) discontinued neoadjuvant EV due to AEs. All pts underwent RC+PLND; 13 (59.1%) were in long-term follow-up at data cutoff (Nov 20, 2024). Median follow-up was 49.7 mo (range, 3.1-53.6). pCR rate was 36.4% (8/22; 95% CI, 17.2-59.3). Median EFS by INV was 40.1 mo (95% CI, 14.5-NE) for all pts, NR (95% CI, 6.5-NE) for pts with pCR, and 18.8 mo (95% CI, 6.7-NE) for pts without pCR. Estimated EFS rate by INV at 24 and 36 months was 62.0% (95% CI, 38.2-78.9) and 56.9% (95% CI, 33.4-74.8), respectively, and improved in pts with pCR. Median OS was NR (95% CI, 33.4-NE) in all pts. Estimated OS rate at 24 and 36 months was 77.3% (95% CI, 53.7-89.9) and 68.2% (95% CI, 44.6-83.4), respectively. Key updated 3-year efficacy data are shown in the Table. The safety profile was consistent with prior reports, and no new safety concerns were seen. Conclusions: Based on 3-year efficacy results, neoadjuvant EV monotherapy treatment continued to show encouraging antitumor activity in cis-ineligible pts with MIBC, including median EFS and OS exceeding historical real-world data in cis-ineligible patients following RC alone (Li Eur Urol Oncol 2024; Rose SESAUA 2023). The safety profile was generally manageable and consistent with the known AE profile of EV in other settings. Phase 3 trials evaluating perioperative EV + pembrolizumab in cis-eligible and -ineligible pts with MIBC (KN-905/EV-303, KN-B15/EV-304) are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03288545 . Median EFS by INV (95% CI), monthsAll ptspCRNon-pCR 40.1 (14.5-NE)NR (6.5-NE)18.8 (6.7-NE) 3-year EFS rate by INV (95% CI), %All ptspCRNon-pCR 56.9 (33.4-74.8)72.9 (27.6-92.5)46.4 (19.3-69.9) Median OS (95% CI), months NR (33.4-NE) 3-year OS rate (95% CI), % 68.2 (44.6-83.4) n=22. Median values should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 4583-4583
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (19)

N

Nataliya Mar

University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA

D

Daniel P. Petrylak

Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

C

Christopher J. Hoimes

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC

J

Jonathan E. Rosenberg

Genitourinary Oncology Service Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York USA

T

Thomas W. Flaig

University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora

T

Theodore Stewart Gourdin

Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC

P

Pedro C. Barata

Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland Ohio USA

E

Elizabeth Henry

Loyola University, Chicago, IL

M

Mehmet Asim Bilen

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...

S

Saby George

Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY

S

Santosh Rao

Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH

V

Vasileios J. Assikis

Piedmont Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA

E

Earle F Burgess

Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC

B

Brian E. Lewis

Tulane University, New Orleans, LA

S

Sandy Srinivas

S

Seema Rao Gorla

Astellas Pharma, Inc., Northbrook, IL

C

Changting Meng

Pfizer, Bothell, WA

Y

Yalin Zhu

Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA

P

Peter H. O'Donnell

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL