Abstract 2388P
Background
Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) followed by avelumab 1L maintenance in patients without progressive disease is standard 1L treatment for la/mUC. In patients ineligible for cisplatin at the standard dose schedule (C; 1 day per cycle), carboplatin (Cb) or a split-dose schedule of C (35 mg/m2 on days 1 + 8) are alternative options. The effectiveness of these regimens compared with standard-dose C has not been extensively examined, especially in a real-world (rw) setting. In this study, we compared clinical outcomes to PBC in patients with la/mUC who received 1L gemcitabine (G) with split-dose C (CG-S) vs standard-dose CG or CbG regimens.
Methods
The CONVINCE study was initiated in Dec 2021 and enrolled 188 patients who received 1L PBC in 2019-2020 at 27 oncology or urology institutions (8 hospitals/19 office-based practices) across Germany. Objective response rates (ORRs) and rw progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (rwOS) were compared in the following subgroups: CG-S vs CG and CG-S vs CbG.
Results
Of 124 patients who received 1L PBC with G, 27 (21.8%) received CG-S, 75 (60.5%) CG, and 22 (17.7%) CbG. Median follow-up was 16.5 months. A Cox regression analysis including several characteristics (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [ECOG PS], comorbidities) showed no significant differences in rwPFS between CG-S vs CG and CG-S vs CbG subgroups.
Conclusions
This rw study provides valuable insights into the use of 1L CG-S in routine clinical practice in Germany, where C administered in split-dose schedule showed comparable outcomes to standard-dose C or Cb. The analysis suggests that CG-S can be a viable alternative for administering 1L PBC in patients with la/mUC for whom standard-dose C may be unsuitable, without compromising treatment effectiveness. Table: 2388P
Parameter | CG-S (n=27) | CG (n=75) | CbG (n=22) | p value CG-S vs CG | p value CG-S vs CbG |
Male, % | 70.4 | 73.3 | 77.2 | – | |
Age, median (range), years | 66 (50-81) | 69 (52-81) | 73 (59-84) | ||
ECOG PS at diagnosis 0/1/2 (%) | 59/37/4 | 55/40/5 | 46/50/4 | ||
1L PBC cycles, median, n | 5 | 4 | 6 | ||
rwPFS rates (Kaplan-Meier), % | |||||
6 mo | 85 | 77 | 86 | 0.25 | 0.67 |
9 mo | 63 | 57 | 55 | ||
12 mo | 37 | 39 | 32 | ||
18 mo | 15 | 23 | 14 | ||
rwPFS, median, mo | 10.5 | 10.5 | 9.1 | 0.35 | 0.24 |
rwOS rates (Kaplan-Meier), % | |||||
6 mo | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.06 | 0.15 |
9 mo | 96 | 100 | 91 | ||
12 mo | 85 | 85 | 86 | ||
18 mo | 37 | 69 | 45 | ||
rwOS, median, mo | 14.4 | 18.8 | 16.7 | 0.06 | 0.14 |
Best response (physician assessment) | |||||
Evaluable, n (%) | 25 (92) | 69 (92) | 22 (100) | – | |
Complete response, % | 8.0 | 11.6 | 18.2 | ||
Partial response, % | 56.0 | 37.7 | 40.9 | ||
ORR, % | 64.0 | 49.3 | 59.1 | 0.84 | 0.65 |
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Editorial support was provided by Jeremy Gardner on behalf of Clinical Thinking and was funded by Merck and Pfizer.
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
This study was sponsored by Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945), as part of an alliance between Merck and Pfizer.
Disclosure
K. Schlack: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Role: AAA, Amgen, Apogepha, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, EUSA-Pharma, Fosanis, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck Healthcare, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. S. Machtens: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Role: Sanofi-Aventis, BD, Pfizer, Amgen, Bebig, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Institutional, Speaker’s Bureau: Sanofi-Aventis, Amgen, Novartis, BD, Bebig, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Apogepha, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Merck. U. Osowski,S. Guenther, M. Kearney: Financial Interests, Institutional, Full or part-time Employment: Merck. R. Lipp: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Gilead, Omnicare; Financial Interests, Institutional, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck; Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Project Support: Merck, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, AbbVie. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2393P - Ephrin signalling mediates resistance to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition in urothelial carcinoma (UC)
Presenter: Yu-Hsuen Yang
Session: Poster session 24
2394P - Biomarkers of treatment (Tx)-related toxicity in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) pts treated with enfortumab vedotin (EV): Analysis of UNITE study
Presenter: Amanda Nizam
Session: Poster session 24
2395P - Micropapillary histology (MPUC) and extra-cellular domain ERBB2 (ERBB2 ECD+) mutations in urothelial bladder cancer (UBC)
Presenter: Akshay Sood
Session: Poster session 24
2396P - Relationship of tumor fraction in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with prognosis in patients with advanced urothelial cancer
Presenter: Benjamin Miron
Session: Poster session 24
2398P - Are fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations a possible predictive factor for platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (MUC)?
Presenter: Laura Ferrer-Mileo
Session: Poster session 24
2399P - Circulating tumor DNA and urine tumor DNA detection of minimal residual disease in upper tract urothelial carcinoma with radical nephroureterectomy: A cohort study
Presenter: Wei Xue
Session: Poster session 24
2400P - Frequency and nature of genomic alterations (GA) in ERBB2-altered urothelial bladder cancer (UBC)
Presenter: Rafee Talukder
Session: Poster session 24
2401P - Detection of molecular recurrence in early-stage bladder cancer patients using a urinary tumor DNA assay after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)
Presenter: Ruiyun Zhang
Session: Poster session 24