Catto, James W.F.

Background High‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) has a variable prognosis, managed predominantly by local surgical resection and intravesical Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), or radical cystectomy (RC). Current treatments are poorly tolerated, have supply limitations and often fail to control the disease. Treatments overcoming these limitations are needed to improve HRNMIBC outcomes. Many novel agents have been approved in recent years (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept‐pmln, N‐803), but long‐term efficacy is unknown. Given advanced bladder cancer findings, we believe direct intravesical administration of atezolizumab may aid with managing HRNMIBC or muscle‐invasive bladder cancer in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin‐based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Study design The INtraVESical immunoTherapy (INVEST) trial is a UK‐based, open‐label, non‐randomised, single‐centre, Phase Ib dose escalation, window of opportunity study exploring atezolizumab administration via intravesical routes (passive instillation and direct injection [sub‐urothelial]) in patients with bladder cancer with all stages undergoing RC. For both routes, an initial dose confirmation stage will determine toxicity and recommended atezolizumab dosage, followed by a dose expansion stage to further evaluate safety and toxicity at the recommended dose. Endpoints We aim to investigate safety (primary) and preliminary activity (secondary) of intravesical atezolizumab delivered by passive instillation and direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall in patients with bladder urothelial cell carcinoma prior to RC. Primary endpoints include dose limiting toxicities and adverse events. Secondary endpoints include progression‐free survival, pathological complete response rate and treatment compliance. Exploratory endpoints include pharmacokinetic profile (assessed by serum and urine concentrations at prespecified timepoints), spatial analysis of atezolizumab distribution within RC tissue by imaging mass spectrometry and overall survival. Patients and Methods Atezolizumab will be administered intravesically by either passive instillation or direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall. Cohorts will receive either 600 mg or 1200 mg doses administered as a single dose or as multiple doses (weekly for 3–6 weeks). Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN15842444 , registered 2 December 2022.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

773 Background: BCG-unresponsive High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) tumours have an ominous prognosis and require effective, tolerable treatments. Uptake remains low for FDA approved agents (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln or N-803) due to toxicity concerns. We hypothesize direct intravesical administration of a PDL1 inhibitor could be effective with less systemic toxicity. However, it is unknown whether antibodies delivered via this route can reach tumor vasculature. INVEST is a phase Ib window of opportunity study investigating the safety and preliminary activity of passive instillation and direct injection of intravesical atezolizumab into the tumour/bladder wall. Methods: Eligible participants (ECOG performance status 0-2) are awaiting radical cystectomy (RC) for any stage urothelial cell carcinoma. Participants with muscle invasive bladder cancer, must be ineligible for/ refuse cisplatin based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Atezolizumab (600mg or 1200mg) is administered via direct injection into the tumour/bladder or by instillation into the bladder. The 3+3 design is utilised in the dose confirmation stages where participants receive either Single or Multiple (between 3 and 6) dose(s) of treatment before RC. Efficacy signals are derived from pathological complete response at RC and progression-free survival at 2 years. Primary endpoint, Dose confirmation stage: The number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed from first dose of trial treatment to RC. Results: Enrolment began in May 2023. 13 participants were recruited to the single dose cohorts: 11 male, and 2 female. Age (Range; 43-86); median 70y, 9 NMIBC, 4 MIBC. 7 for direct injection (4 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg dose) and 6 for passive instillation (3 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg). Due to technical issues (syringe size) the first direct injection participant did not receive the full 600mg and were replaced. 12 participants received trial treatment as planned. There were no DLTs; 5 participants experienced non-trial treatment related SAEs (4 infections, 2 ileus, 2 renal impairment; 7/8 events occurred post-RC and all SAEs resolved). All participants underwent planned RC within the protocol stipulated timeline. Median time from last treatment to RC was18 days. 5 of 13 participants had downstaging of tumour in cystectomy specimen. Following independent Safety Review Committee review, recruitment is now open for the dose confirmation phase (Multiple 1200mg dose) in both treatment routes. Conclusions: Single dose atezolizumab treatment at a dose of 600mg and 1200mg in passive instillation and direct injection cohorts was well tolerated. Early efficacy data is encouraging. Multiple weekly doses of 1200mg in each treatment route are now being investigated within the INVEST trial. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN15842444 .

TPS582 Background: The majority of patients with bladder cancer present with non-muscle invasive disease (Chang 2016; Woldu 2017; Kates 2020; Li 2020). The standard of care for treatment of high risk NMIBC involves transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) followed by intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) or chemotherapy. Although the response rate to BCG therapy is high, many patients recur within 1–5 years (Matulay JU 2021). For patients who have BCG unresponsive disease after adequate course of BCG, there are limited options. While radical cystectomy (RC) is still considered the standard of care, most patients are reluctant to undergo RC and their options are limited to intravesical chemotherapy or pembrolizumab. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate directed to Nectin-4, which is highly expressed in bladder tumors. In EV-301, a phase 3 study, EV showed an OS benefit vs chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who had previously received platinum-based therapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor (Powles NEJM 2021). Based on its demonstrated benefit in la/mUC, EV is currently being evaluated in earlier UC settings. The purpose of this study is to investigate the intravesical administration of EV for patients with NMIBC. Methods: EV-104 (NCT05014139) is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, PK, and antitumor activity of intravesical EV in adults with high-risk BCG-unresponsive NMIBC (carcinoma in situ with or without papillary disease) who are ineligible for or refuse RC. The dose escalation part of the trial aims to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose of intravesical EV. The dose expansion part will evaluate patients at the MTD or recommended dose and further characterize safety and antitumor activity of intravesical EV. The study treatment regimen will include an induction phase, where patients will receive intravesical EV weekly for 6 weeks followed by monthly maintenance for a total of 9 additional EV doses. Patients will be assessed for response every 3 months by cystoscopy and urine cytology, while on study. Safety and antitumor activity endpoints will be summarized using descriptive statistics. The study is currently enrolling in the US with additional sites planned in Canada and the EU. Clinical trial information: NCT05014139 .

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. Results: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4–57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2–5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). Conclusions: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. Impact: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(7); 1121–9. ©2015 AACR.