Bajorin, Dean F.

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has proven survival benefits for patients with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, yet its role for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) remains undefined. We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial of NAC with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin (GC) for patients with high-risk UTUC before extirpative surgery to evaluate response, survival, and tolerability. METHODS Eligible patients with defined criteria for high-risk localized UTUC received four cycles of split-dose GC before surgical resection and lymph node dissection. The primary study end point was rate of pathologic response (defined as < ypT2N0). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. RESULTS Among 57 patients evaluated, 36 (63%) demonstrated pathologic response (95% CI, 49 to 76). A complete pathologic response (ypT0N0) was noted in 11 patients (19%). Fifty-one patients (89%) tolerated at least three complete cycles of split-dose GC, 27 patients (47%) tolerated four complete cycles, and all patients proceeded to surgery. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, 2- and 5-year PFS rates were 89% (95% CI, 81 to 98) and 72% (95% CI, 59 to 87), while 2- and 5-year OS rates were 93% (95% CI, 86 to 100) and 79% (95% CI, 67 to 94), respectively. Pathologic complete and partial responses were associated with improved PFS and OS compared with nonresponders (≥ ypT2N any; 2-year PFS 100% and 95% v 76%, P < .001; 2-year OS 100% and 100% v 80%, P < .001). CONCLUSION NAC with split-dose GC for high-risk UTUC is a well-tolerated, effective therapy demonstrating evidence of pathologic response that is associated with favorable survival outcomes. Given that these survival outcomes are superior to historical series, these data support the use of NAC as a standard of care for high-risk UTUC, and split-dose GC is a viable option for NAC.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are an important therapeutic option for urothelial carcinoma, but durable responses are achieved in a minority of patients. Identifying pre-treatment biomarkers that may predict response to these therapies or who exhibit intrinsic resistance, is of paramount importance. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence of PD-L1 copy number alteration in urothelial carcinoma and correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 1050 carcinomas of the bladder and upper urinary tract that underwent targeted next generation sequencing, prospectively. We assessed PD-L1 protein expression, copy number status (next generation sequencing/FISH), and detailed treatment response. RESULTS: We identified 9 tumors with PD-L1 amplification and 9 tumors with PD-L1 deletion. PD-L1 protein expression was the highest in PD-L1 amplified tumors. Of the 9 patients whose tumors harbored PD-L1 amplification, 6 received immunotherapy with 4 deriving clinical benefit, and 2 achieving durable response. Of the 9 patients whose tumors had PD-L1 copy number losses, 4 received immunotherapy with 3 experiencing disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 copy number alterations may serve as potential biomarkers of response to immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma patients, if validated in larger cohorts.

5017 Background: HDCT/ASCT represents a curative salvage treatment for patients with GCT but is rarely used for other solid tumors. Patients undergoing HDCT/ASCT for hematologic neoplasms require revaccination for their childhood immunizations. Whether this is necessary in patients with GCT is unknown. Methods: In this prospective longitudinal study, patients with GCT undergoing HDCT-ASCT from 11/2010 to 5/2018 had serologies for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, and Varicella Zoster measured before HDCT and at 3, 6, and in a subset, 12+ months after the last HDCT with results at these timepoints compared using descriptive statistics. In addition, titer levels at ≥6 months post-transplant were matched 1:1 for age and gender with HL patients who underwent HDCT/ASCT during the same time period. Immunity was compared between cohorts using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results: Of 80 patients with GCT (median age 30, 84% nonseminoma), 91% received 3 sequential transplants and 68 had repeat titers at ≥6 months. Immunity at baseline was >95% for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio and 89% for Varicella Zoster but lower for Measles (74%), Mumps (85%), and Rubella (83%) (Table). Compared to baseline, proportional immunity for all infections was similar at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplant in the GCT population (≥6 months shown in Table). Matching resulted in 58 GCT-HL pairs. One-year immunity was numerically lower for most infections in the HL vs. GCT patients and significantly decreased for Measles and Rubella (Table). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess vaccine titers following HDCT/ASCT for GCT. We demonstrate that HDCT/ASCT does not result in loss of immunity to childhood vaccines and that GCT patients retain protective titers more frequently than those with HL. However, 15-31% of GCT patients lack MMR immunity at baseline and at 1-year post-ASCT. Therefore, we recommend checking MMR titers at 1-year post-ASCT with revaccination of those lacking immunity. Titer evaluation and revaccination is not necessary for other childhood immunizations.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

LBA4500 Background: Cisplatin-based chemo is a standard 1L treatment (tx) for mUC and the only tx that prolongs OS; however, age or comorbidities render many pts ineligible, and 30-50% receive no tx. Atezo (MPDL3280A) is active and well tolerated in platinum-treated mUC, justifying testing atezo as 1L tx in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Methods: Pts were chemo naive in the metastatic setting and cisplatin ineligible (renal [GFR > 30 but < 60 mL/min]/hearing impairment, ≥ G2 peripheral neuropathy [PN] or ≥ ECOG PS2). Atezo 1200 mg was given IV q3w until PD (RECIST v1.1). Centrally assessed PD-L1 on tumor infiltrating immune cells (IC; SP142 IHC assay) was scored IC2/3, 1 or 0. The primary efficacy endpoint was confirmed ORR assessed per RECIST v1.1 (central independent review facility) using a data cutoff of Sep 14, 2015. Results: 119 efficacy/safety-evaluable pts of any PD-L1 IC had a median age of 73 y: 21% ≥ 80 y. 18% had prior systemic tx (21% [neo]adjuvant); 10% had radiotherapy. 66% had visceral mets. 71% had CrCl < 60 mL/min; 13% had hearing loss ≥ 25 dB; 6% had prior PN ≥ G2; 20% had ECOG PS2. ORR was 19% (95% CI 13-28; 5% CR), and responses occurred in all IC subgroups (Table; includes DCR/PFS/OS) and in pts with poor prognostic factors. 22/23 responses were ongoing with mDOR not reached. Median follow-up was 8.5 mo (range 0.2-14.3); median tx duration was 15 wk. Atezo was generally well tolerated. Tx-related all-G and G3-4 AEs were seen in 64% and 12% of pts, respectively. Related all-G AEs ≥ 10% included fatigue, pruritus, diarrhea. 1 G5 related AE occurred (sepsis). 3% had a G3-4 immune-mediated AE. Conclusions: Atezo has clinically meaningful activity in 1L cisplatin-ineligible mUC pts, and preliminary OS is encouraging. The durable nature of response and favorable AE profile makes this an attractive alternative to chemo. NCT02108652. Clinical trial information: NCT02108652. [Table: see text]

Purpose To assist in determining barriers to an oncology career incorporating cancer prevention, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Prevention Workforce Pipeline Work Group sponsored surveys of training program directors and oncology fellows. Methods Separate surveys with parallel questions were administered to training program directors at their fall 2013 retreat and to oncology fellows as part of their February 2014 in-training examination survey. Forty-seven (67%) of 70 training directors and 1,306 (80%) of 1,634 oncology fellows taking the in-training examination survey answered questions. Results Training directors estimated that ≤ 10% of fellows starting an academic career or entering private practice would have a career focus in cancer prevention. Only 15% of fellows indicated they would likely be interested in cancer prevention as a career focus, although only 12% thought prevention was unimportant relative to treatment. Top fellow-listed barriers to an academic career were difficulty in obtaining funding and lower compensation. Additional barriers to an academic career with a prevention focus included unclear career model, lack of clinical mentors, lack of clinical training opportunities, and concerns about reimbursement. Conclusion Reluctance to incorporate cancer prevention into an oncology career seems to stem from lack of mentors and exposure during training, unclear career path, and uncertainty regarding reimbursement. Suggested approaches to begin to remedy this problem include: 1) more ASCO-led and other prevention educational resources for fellows, training directors, and practicing oncologists; 2) an increase in funded training and clinical research opportunities, including reintroduction of the R25T award; 3) an increase in the prevention content of accrediting examinations for clinical oncologists; and 4) interaction with policymakers to broaden the scope and depth of reimbursement for prevention counseling and intervention services.