Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, on the Impact of First-Line Maintenance Avelumab in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

Video

Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, discusses the impact of avelumab on patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the first-line maintenance setting.

At the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, CancerNetwork® spoke with Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington School of Medicine, about the impact of avelumab (Bavencio) on patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the first-line maintenance setting.

Data from the phase 2 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432), which examined the agent in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease, reinforced that if patients were are treated with avelumab in the first-line maintenance setting, the time spent on the first- and second-line therapy was prolonged vs best supportive care.

Transcript:

The data from this particular abstract reinforced that if [patients] get avelumab as a maintenance therapy, the time that [they] spent in the first- and second-line therapy is prolonged compared [with] patients who [received] best supportive care. It was very difficult for us to granularly evaluate the progression-free survival in the subsequent line of therapy [following] progression in the maintenance trial. [However], with this abstract, we tried to estimate the overall time that [patients] spent in the first 2 lines of therapy after randomization. The data, if anything, substantiate or reinforce the benefit that avelumab has as a switch maintenance therapy in this population.

Reference

Grivas P, Park SH, Voog E, et al. Avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC): analysis of time to end of next-line therapy in JAVELIN Bladder 100. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(suppl 15):4525. doi:10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.4525

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content