A 48-year-old woman without obvious environmental risk factors was diagnosed with metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring a mutation in EGFR typical of driver mutations for non-small cell lung cancer. Within a year, her cancer progressed on four standard therapies for urothelial cancer, including cancer in lungs, liver, bone, and brain. As fifth-line therapy, she received osimertinib, leading to a complete response in the brain and improvement elsewhere, and the cancer remained controlled for six months. Targeted therapy for rare driver mutations can be effective in urothelial cancer and should be considered prior to exhausting standard therapies.

Bladder cancer (BC) accounts for about 4% of all malignancies. Non-muscle-invasive BC, 75% of cases, is treated with transurethral resection and adjuvant intravesical instillation, while muscle-invasive BC warrants cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy. Although immune-checkpoint inhibitors, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents have provided dramatic advances, metastatic BC remains a generally incurable disease and clinical trials continue to vigorously evaluate novel molecules. Cancer vaccines aim at activating the patient\'s immune system against tumor cells. Several means of delivering neoantigens have been developed, including peptides, antigen-presenting cells, virus, or nucleic acids. Various improvements are constantly being explored, such as adjuvants use and combination strategies. Nucleic acids-based vaccines are increasingly gaining attention in recent years, with promising results in other malignancies. However, despite the recent advantages, numerous obstacles persist. This review is aimed at describing the different types of cancer vaccines, their evaluations in UC patients and the more recent innovations in this field.

BACKGROUND: Taxane- based chemotherapy is widely used in patients with platinum- and immunotherapy refractory, metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Outcomes are poor and biomarkers associated with outcome are lacking. We aim to identify cancer hallmarks associated with survival in patients receiving paclitaxel.
METHODS: Whole-transcriptome profiles were generated for a subset of patients enrolled in a randomised phase II study investigating paclitaxel and pazopanib in platinum refractory mUC (PLUTO, EudraCT 2011-001841-34). Estimates of gene expression were calculated and input into the Almac proprietary analysis pipeline and signature scores were calculated using ClaraT V3.0.0. Ten key gene signatures were assessed: Immuno-Oncology, Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition, Angiogenesis, Proliferation, Cell Death, Genome Instability, Energetics, Inflammation, Immortality and Evading Growth. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression model and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: 38 and 45 patients treated with paclitaxel or pazopanib were included. Patients with high genome instability expression treated with paclitaxel had significantly improved survival with a HR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.14-0.61, p=0.001) and HR 0.34 (95% CI: 0.17-0.69, p=0.003) for PFS and OS, respectively. Similarly, patients with high evading growth suppressor expression treated with paclitaxel had improved PFS and OS with a HR of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.19-0.77, p=0.007) and HR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23-0.91, p=0.026), respectively. No other gene signatures had significant impact on outcome. In both paclitaxel and pazopanib cohorts, angiogenesis activation was associated with worse PFS and OS, and VEGF targeted therapy did not improve outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: High Genome-instability and Evading-growth suppressor biologies are associated with improved survival in patients with platinum refractory mUC receiving paclitaxel. These may refine mUC risk stratification and guide treatment decision in the future.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have completely changed cancer treatment in the last decade and are now widely used in several cancers. In the era of immunotherapy, oncologists have changed not only the way they evaluate treatment efficacy but also the management of treatment-related adverse events. This new profile of immune adverse events has resulted in an urgent need for a more holistic view of cancer patients and for more collaborations with other organ specialists to optimize patient treatment and support. The anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, avelumab, has been widely used as a maintenance treatment in stage IV urothelial carcinoma since the results from the Javelin 100 bladder trial were published. We report a case of a 75-year-old man with stage IV urothelial carcinoma submitted to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance avelumab. He achieved a complete bone and pulmonary response 10 months after stopping avelumab, which was suspended due to a serious immune adverse event, an ICI-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus. At present, the patient has an overall survival of 24 months and shows no evidence of disease with a good quality of life 16 months after avelumab suspension. We hypothesized that a late response to avelumab could explain this unexpected outcome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer have been conventionally treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, numerous new treatments have been proposed to improve overall survival (OS) and reduce adverse effects, but no direct head-to-head comparisons among these agents are available.
METHODS: The treatments evaluated in our analyses included (a) monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI); (b) combinations of an ICI with chemotherapy; and (c) combinations of an ICI with other drugs. Using OS as the endpoint, a series of indirect comparisons were performed to rank the most effective regimens against both chemotherapy and each other. Our analysis was based on the application of an artificial intelligence software program (IPDfromKM method) that reconstructs individual patient data from the information reported in the graphs of Kaplan-Meier curves.
RESULTS: A total of five studies published in six articles were included. In our main analysis, nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed better OS compared to chemotherapy (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59-0.82), while durvalumab plus tremelimumab showed no OS benefit (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.11). More interestingly, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab significantly prolonged OS compared to both chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.63) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS: Among new treatments for locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed the best efficacy in terms of OS. Our results support the use of this combination as a first-line treatment in this setting.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a frontline treatment of patients with cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). There is limited evidence on the prognostic value of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in advanced UC treatment, particularly in the context of ICI therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic association of PROs with survival in patients with advanced UC treated with atezolizumab.
METHODS: This study used data from 467 patients with advanced UC initiating atezolizumab in the IMvigor211 trial. Pre-treatment PROs association with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazard analysis. PROs were recorded via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. Discrimination performance was assessed via the C-statistic (c).
RESULTS: Patient reported physical function, pain, appetite loss, global health, fatigue, role function, constipation, nausea and vomiting, dyspnoea, and insomnia were significantly associated with OS and PFS on univariable and adjusted analysis (P < 0.05). Physical function (c = 0.63), pain (c = 0.63), appetite loss (c = 0.62), global health status (c = 0.62), and fatigue (c = 0.62), were the most prognostic factors of OS. The OS discrimination performance of physical function (c = 0.61) was superior to ECOG PS (c = 0.58). Of patients assessed by investigators as having no performance restrictions (ECOG PS of 0), 38 (18%) and 91 (42%) self-reported low and intermediate physical function scores, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment PROs were identified as independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS. Patient-reported physical function was more prognostic of OS than ECOG PS. This highlights a potential for PROs to enable improved patient stratification in ICI trials.

BACKGROUND: Pain is not well described in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC).
OBJECTIVE: To characterize pain and assess the content validity of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item in patients with la/mUC receiving first-line treatment in the US.
METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in patients aged≥45 years with confirmed la/mUC, self-reported la/mUC-attributed pain before enrollment, and no major surgery≤3 months prior to being interviewed. Interview participants were asked open-ended questions about their la/mUC symptoms and pain. \"Think aloud\" cognitive debriefing was conducted for the BPI-SF worst pain item.
RESULTS: Ten participants with laUC and six (38%) with mUC were interviewed. First-line treatments included cisplatin (n = 14; 88%) or carboplatin (n = 2; 13%). The average past-week worst pain score (0-10 scale) was 6.2 (range, 3-10); seven (44%) participants reported severe pain (score≥7). Pain was most frequently reported in the back (n = 14; 88%) and/or pelvic/lower abdominal area (n = 10; 63%). Pain impacted all participants\' physical and daily activities; 81% reported it impacted their overall quality of life. All participants interpreted and completed the BPI-SF worst pain item without difficulty; 15 (94%) reported it was relevant to their la/mUC experience. Participants understood the 24-hour recall period; most supported daily (n = 13; 81%) or weekly (n = 14; 88%) assessment, preferring electronic administration using their phone (n = 14; 88%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pain attributed to la/mUC impacted physical and daily activities in all participants undergoing first-line treatment for la/mUC. Content validity was demonstrated for the BPI-SF worst pain item in this population.

BACKGROUND: Advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) is an aggressive disease whose mutagenic processes are yet to be elucidated. Targeted therapies are urgently needed, but the road from bench to bedside is slowly progressing. In this review, we discuss urothelial carcinoma etiology, along with the most recent advances in UC candidate targeted therapies.
METHODS: A comprehensive database search was performed. We aimed to review the most recent updates on UC genomics and targeted therapies. Pre-clinical as well as clinical studies were included.
RESULTS: Our review highlights the advances in understanding the molecular basis of urothelial tumorigenesis, including smoking, chemical parasitic carcinogens, inheritance, and APOBEC3 editing enzymes. We discussed how these factors contributed to the current mutational landscape of UC. Therapeutic options for UC are still very limited. However, several promising therapeutic approaches are in development to leverage our knowledge of molecular targets, such as targeting fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR), DNA damage repair pathways, and HER2.
CONCLUSIONS: Blindly testing targeted therapies based on other cancer data is not sufficient. UC-specific biomarkers are needed to precisely use the appropriate drug for the appropriate population. More efforts to understand UC biology and evolution are urgently needed.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) with early bone metastases (eBM) vs no early bone metastases (nBM) have not thoroughly been described in the age of immuno-oncology.
OBJECTIVE: To compare survival and other clinical outcomes in patients with eBM and nBM.
METHODS: We used a multi-institutional database of patients with mUC treated with systemic therapy. Demographic, metastatic site, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square tests were performed. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method; multivariable Cox analysis was performed.
RESULTS: We identified 270 pts, 67% men, mean age 69±11 years. At metastatic diagnosis, 27% had≥1 eBM and were more likely to have de novo vs. recurrent metastases (42% vs 19%, p < 0.001). Patients with eBM had shorter overall survival (OS) vs. those with nBM, (6.1 vs 13.7 months, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, eBM independently associated with higher risk of death, HR = 2.52 (95% CI: 1.75-3.63, p < 0.0001). OS was shorter for patients with eBM who received initial immune checkpoint inhibitor vs platinum-based chemotherapy, (1.6 vs 9.1 months, p = 0.02). Patients with eBM received higher opioid analgesic doses compared to patients with nBM and received quantitatively more palliative radiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mUC and eBM have poorer outcomes, may benefit less from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and represent an unmet need for novel therapeutic interventions. Dedicated clinical trials, biomarker validation to assist in patient selection, as well as consensus on reporting of non-measurable disease are required.

Emerging evidence indicates that androgen receptor (AR) signaling plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of male-dominant urothelial cancer. Meanwhile, latrophilins (LPHNs), a group of the G-protein-coupled receptor to which a spider venom latrotoxin is known to bind, remain largely uncharacterized in neoplastic diseases. The present study aimed to determine the functional role of LPHN3 (encoded by the ADGRL3 gene), in association with AR signaling, in urothelial tumorigenesis. In human normal urothelial SVHUC cells, AR overexpression and androgen treatment considerably increased the expression levels of ADGRL3/LPHN3, while chromatin immunoprecipitation assay revealed the binding of AR to the promoter region of ADGRL3. In SVHUC or SVHUC-AR cells with exposure to a chemical carcinogen 3-methylcholanthrene, LPHN3 activation via ligand (e.g., α-latrotoxin, FLRT3) treatment during the process of the neoplastic/malignant transformation or LPHN3 knockdown via shRNA virus infection induced or reduced, respectively, the oncogenic activity. In N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)nitrosamine-treated female mice, α-latrotoxin or FLRT3 injection accelerated the development of bladder tumors. Immunohistochemistry in surgical specimens further showed the significantly elevated expression of LPHN3 in non-muscle-invasive bladder tumors, compared with adjacent normal urothelial tissues, which was associated with a marginally (p = 0.051) higher risk of disease recurrence after transurethral resection. In addition, positivity of LPHN3 and AR in these tumors was strongly correlated. These findings indicate that LPHN3 functions as a downstream effector of AR and promotes urothelial tumorigenesis.