Erdafatinib was compared to chemo in the >=2nd line in patients who had FGFR2/3 mutations, fusions or alterations with metastatic bladder cancer. Survival endpoints were superior in the targeted group with a overall survival of 12 vs. eight months.
In my experience, the challenge with this group of targeted agents is tolerability.
Erdafitinib is a pan–fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti–programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti–programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear.
We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival.
A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P=0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients).
Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504. opens in new tab.)
This antibody doublet is essentially the new SOC in met-urothelial cancer. The anti-PD1 and ADC combination is compelling in many ways and the survival outcomes compared to chemo were very significant. This combination is on NCCN, as well.
This is a negative study looking at atezolizumab + chemo vs. chemo alone in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In the same issue, there is a negative study on atezolizumab vs. chemo alone, as well. It does seem that atezolizumab has limited disease activity versus some comparable agents.
For metastatic urothelial carcinoma, the combination of nivolumab + gemcitabine (gem) /cisplatin (cis) resulted in an improved overall response rate (ORR) of 58 vs. 43%, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months of 34 vs. 22% and higher rates of complete response (CR) at 22 vs. 12%. This is the first study to improve upon the chemotherapy doublet of gem/cis in this disease setting. While an interesting treatment option, this has not yet made it into the NCCN guidelines and pembrolizumab + enfortumab seems to be a better tolerated, non-chemo option that is gaining traction.
A very compelling option to keep an eye out for as larger studies are sure to come in the future. EV + pembrolizumab had an ORR of ~65% with durable responses.
The combo arm had unsurprisingly higher grade 3-4 AE’s. For platinum-ineligible patients, it would be worth considering this regimen even today.
Impressive response rates and complete response in this setting, with moderate toxicities. Randomized trial is necessary to document survival, PFS differences. Cost will be very considerable in the setting value-based strategies. The clinical benefit must be quite superior in a randomized setting.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
