Abstract
Background
Enfortumab vedotin (EV), an antibody–drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, has been used for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after progressing on checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Re-challenging chemotherapy with platinum agents and continuing CPIs beyond progressive disease (PD) have often been chosen following PD on CPIs, and several studies indicate favorable treatment effects of re-challenging chemotherapy. There is little evidence for comparing EV and re-challenging chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.
Objective
The aim was to reveal the real-world treatment outcomes of EV, re-challenging chemotherapy, and continuing CPIs beyond PD in mUC patients.
Patients and Methods
A multi-institutional dataset of 350 mUC patients treated with CPIs was utilized. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were evaluated to compare the treatment arms.
Results
One hundred and nine mUC patients were treated with EV with a median follow-up of 6.4 months. The ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 48% and 70%, respectively. The OS from PD on pembrolizumab exhibited significant differences among the three groups, with a median OS of 8, 14, and 29 months in continuing pembrolizumab beyond PD, re-challenging chemotherapy, and EV, respectively. When comparing the survival outcomes from the initiation of the treatment, there is neither a difference in OS (p = 0.124), PFS (p = 0.936), nor ORR (p = 0.816) between EV and re-challenging chemotherapy. Notably, the DOR in patients who achieved an objective response was significantly longer in the EV group than the re-challenging chemotherapy group (a median of 11 and 5 months, p = 0.049). For OS, the difference was not statistically significant (27 and 11 months in EV and re-challenging chemotherapy, respectively: p = 0.05).
Conclusions
A superior effect of EV on patient survival compared to re-challenging chemotherapy and continuing pembrolizumab beyond PD was observed in our real-world analysis, which is attributed to the durable DOR in EV treatment despite the similar ORR to re-challenging chemotherapy.
Plain Language Summary
Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody–drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4 and is now utilized for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma following treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Until recently, repeating chemotherapy using platinum drugs or continuing CPIs were often the treatments used for these patients. In the present study, we reported real-world treatment outcomes, mainly focusing on EV and repeating chemotherapy. Although the objective responses to the treatments were comparable, the duration of response for patients responding to the treatment was significantly longer in patients treated with EV than in those repeating chemotherapy, resulting in extended survival time with EV treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT, Dogliotti L, Oliver T, Moore MJ, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(17):3068–77.
Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, Fradet Y, Lee JL, Fong L, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(11):1015–26.
Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Balar AV, Necchi A, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10031):1909–20.
Loriot Y, Necchi A, Park SH, Garcia-Donas J, Huddart R, Burgess E, et al. Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):338–48.
Powles T, Rosenberg JE, Sonpavde GP, Loriot Y, Duran I, Lee JL, et al. Enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(12):1125–35.
Sidaway P. Sacituzumab govitecan is safe and effective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18(7):400.
Sigorski D, Rozanowski P, Izycka-Swieszewska E, Wiktorska K. Antibody-drug conjugates in uro-oncology. Target Oncol. 2022;17(3):203–21.
Uchimoto T, Fukushima T, Komura K, Fukuokaya W, Adachi T, Hashimoto T, et al. Re-challenging chemotherapy after pembrolizumab in platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2023;131(4):477–85.
Gandevia B, Tovell A. Declaration of Helsinki. Med J Aust. 1964;2:320–1.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.
Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, Ford R, Schwartz LH, Mandrekar S, et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):e143–52.
Bellmunt J, Choueiri TK, Fougeray R, Schutz FA, Salhi Y, Winquist E, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract experiencing treatment failure with platinum-containing regimens. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1850–5.
Dumontet C, Reichert JM, Senter PD, Lambert JM, Beck A. Antibody-drug conjugates come of age in oncology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(8):641–61.
Tagawa ST, Balar AV, Petrylak DP, Kalebasty AR, Loriot Y, Flechon A, et al. TROPHY-U-01: a phase II open-label study of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(22):2474–85.
Furubayashi N, Hori Y, Morokuma F, Tomoda T, Negishi T, Inoue T, et al. Paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;14(5):91.
Gravis G, Billon E, Baldini C, Massard C, Hilgers W, Delva R, et al. Unexpected response to cisplatin rechallenge after immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum regimen. Eur J Cancer. 2018;104:236–8.
Szabados B, van Dijk N, Tang YZ, van der Heijden MS, Wimalasingham A, Gomez de Liano A, et al. Response rate to chemotherapy after immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic urothelial cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):149–52.
Bersanelli M, Buti S, Cortellini A, Bandini M, Banna GL, Pederzoli F, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression to immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective analysis by the Meet-Uro Group (Meet-URO 1 study). Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2021;15:1–10.
Taguchi S, Kawai T, Ambe Y, Kishitani K, Sugimoto K, Miyakawa J, et al. Enfortumab vedotin versus platinum rechallenge in post-platinum, post-pembrolizumab advanced urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study. Int J Urol. 2023;30(12):1180–6.
Heath EI, Rosenberg JE. The biology and rationale of targeting nectin-4 in urothelial carcinoma. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18(2):93–103.
Qiu S, Zhang J, Wang Z, Lan H, Hou J, Zhang N, et al. Targeting Trop-2 in cancer: recent research progress and clinical application. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2023;1878(4): 188902.
Nishimura K, Nishio K, Hirosuna K, Komura K, Hayashi T, Fukuokaya W, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab and comprehensive CD274/PD-L1 profiles in patients previously treated with chemoradiation therapy as radical treatment in bladder cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10(1):e003868.
Komura K, Hirosuna K, Tokushige S, Tsujino T, Nishimura K, Ishida M, et al. The impact of FGFR3 alterations on the tumor microenvironment and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in bladder cancer. Mol Cancer. 2023;22(1):185.
Kamoun A, de Reynies A, Allory Y, Sjodahl G, Robertson AG, Seiler R, et al. A consensus molecular classification of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2020;77(4):420–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Funding
Kazumasa Komura was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid No. 21H03070 (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science: JSPS), the Kenzo Suzuki Memorial Foundation, the SGH Foundation, the Naito Memorial Foundation, and the Cancer Translational Research Foundation of Japanese Urological Association (JUA).
Conflict of Interest
Taizo Uchimoto, Shuya Tsuchida, Kazumasa Komura, Wataru Fukuokaya, Takahiro Adachi, Yosuke Hirasawa, Takeshi Hashimoto, Atsuhiko Yoshizawa, Masanobu Saruta, Mamoru Hashimoto, Takuya Higashio, Takuya Matsuda, Kazuki Nishimura, Takuya Tsujino, Ko Nakamura, Tatsuo Fukushima, Kyosuke Nishio, Shutaro Yamamoto, Kosuke Iwatani, Fumihiko Urabe, Keiichiro Mori, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Shunsuke Tsuduki, Kiyoshi Takahara, Teruo Inamoto, Jun Miki, Kazutoshi Fujita, Takahiro Kimura, Yoshio Ohno, Ryoichi Shiroki, Hirotsugu Uemura, and Haruhito Azuma declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.
Ethics Approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) from Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University (approval number: RIN-750-2571, approved on 24th January 2020). This observational study adhered to ethical principles aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation’s Good Clinical Practice guidelines, Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices, and relevant laws for noninterventional and observational studies.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent to Publish
Not applicable.
Data Availability
The data from this study can be accessed by academic and commercial partners upon a reasonable request, subject to IRB approval and a data use agreement. For further details or to reanalyze the study’s data, contact the Lead Contact at kazumasa.komura@ompu.ac.jp.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author Contributions
T. Uchimoto: conceptualization, data curation, analysis, investigation, methodology, software, visualization, writing original draft, supervision. S. Tsuchida: data curation, analysis, investigation, methodology, software, visualization. K. Komura: data curation, investigation, investigation, writing the original draft, supervision. W. Fukuokaya: investigation, data curation, validation. A. Adachi: validation, methodology. Y. Hirasawa: methodology, validation. T. Hashimoto: methodology, validation. A. Yoshizawa: data curation. M. Saruta: data curation. M. Hashimoto: analysis. T. Higashio: data curation, analysis. T. Matsuda: investigation. K. Nishimura: data curation. T. Tsujino: methodology, data curation. K. Nakamura: investigation. T. Fukushima: data curation, analysis. K. Nishio: validation. S. Yamamoto: data curation. K. Iwatani: investigation, supervision. F. Urabe: investigation, validation, supervision. K. Mori: methodology, data analysis. T. Yanagisawa: investigation. S. Tsuduki: writing original draft, review. K, Takahara: editing, supervision. T. Inamoto: data curation. J. Miki: data curation, analysis. K. Fujita: review and editing, supervision. T. Kimura: investigation, validation, supervision. Y. Ohno: supervision. R. Shiroki: supervision. H. Uemura: supervision. H. Azuma: supervision.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Uchimoto, T., Tsuchida, S., Komura, K. et al. Durable Response to Enfortumab Vedotin Compared to Re-challenging Chemotherapy in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Checkpoint Inhibitors. Targ Oncol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-024-01047-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-024-01047-y