Avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder 100 Asian subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) with avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. Here, efficacy and safety were assessed from the initial analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (data cutoff October 21, 2019) in patients enrolled in Asian countries. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 4 to 6 cycles of first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy (gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin) were randomized 1:1 to receive avelumab first-line maintenance + BSC or BSC alone, stratified by best response to first-line chemotherapy and visceral vs. nonvisceral disease when initiating first-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was OS assessed from randomization in all patients and patients with PD-L1+ tumors (Ventana SP263 assay). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients in JAVELIN Bladder 100 were enrolled in Asian countries (Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). In this Asian subgroup, 73 and 74 patients received avelumab + BSC or BSC alone, respectively. Median OS was 25.3 months (95% CI, 18.6 to not estimable [NE]) in the avelumab + BSC arm vs. 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.8-NE) in the BSC alone arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.43-1.26]); median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-7.5) vs. 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9-1.9), respectively (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38-0.86]). In the avelumab + BSC vs. BSC alone arms, grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (any causality) occurred in 44.4% vs. 16.2%, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the avelumab + BSC arm were anemia (9.7%), amylase increased (5.6%), and urinary tract infection (4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety results for avelumab first-line maintenance in the Asian subgroup of JAVELIN Bladder 100 were generally consistent with those in the overall trial population. These data support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance as standard of care for Asian patients with advanced UC that has not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. NCT02603432.

Clinical evidence and insights supporting the use of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the Asia-Pacific region.

Until recently, international and Asia-specific guidelines for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) recommended first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy, followed by second-line (2L) anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy where possible, or 1L ICI therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients with PD-L1+ tumors. However, long-term outcomes remain poor and only a minority of patients receive 2L therapy. The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial-which assessed avelumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) as 1L maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy-is the only phase 3 trial of ICI-based treatment in the 1L setting to show significantly improved overall survival, and this treatment approach is now recommended in updated treatment guidelines. Available data from the trial suggest that efficacy and safety in patients enrolled in the Asia-Pacific region were similar to findings in the overall population. In this review, we discuss the treatment of advanced UC, with a specific focus on studies in the Asia-Pacific region, and summarize key findings supporting the use of avelumab 1L maintenance as a standard of care in this setting both in cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients and irrespective of PD-L1 status.

Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Bone Disease Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: An International, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Phase 3 Study-Asian Subgroup Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The primary analysis of a global phase 3 study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) in adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) indicated that denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid for time to first on-study SREs. Here we present a subgroup analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety in Asian patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously or zoledronic acid intravenously 4 mg every 4 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion. All patients received standard-of-care first-line antimyeloma treatment. Each patient received either study drug until an estimated 676 patients experienced at least one on-study SRE and the primary efficacy and safety analyses were completed. RESULTS: Of 1718 total enrolled patients, 196 Asian patients (denosumab, n = 103; zoledronic acid, n = 93) were included in this subgroup analysis. Fewer patients in the denosumab group developed first on-study SRE compared with the zoledronic acid group; the crude incidence of SREs at the primary analysis cutoff was 38.8% and 50.5%, respectively (HR [95% CI], 0.77 [0.48-1.26]). All 194 patients receiving at least one dose of study drug experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE. The most common AEs reported in either group (denosumab, zoledronic acid) were diarrhea (51.0%, 51.1%), nausea (42.2%, 46.7%), and pyrexia (38.2%, 41.3%). Treatment-emergent renal toxicity occurred in 9/102 (8.8%) and 20/92 (21.7%) patients, respectively. Similar rates of positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw (7 [6.9%] vs 5 [5.4%]) and treatment-emergent hypocalcemia (19 [18.6%] vs 17 [18.5%]) were reported in the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety outcomes from this Asian subgroup were comparable to those of the full study population. Overall, this analysis supports denosumab as an additional treatment option for standard of care for Asian patients with newly diagnosed MM with lytic bone lesions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345019.