Florian Roghmann

PURPOSE: The antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) releases a cytotoxic agent into tumor cells via binding to the membrane receptor NECTIN-4. EV was recently approved for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) without prior assessment of the tumor receptor status as ubiquitous NECTIN-4 expression is assumed. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of membranous NECTIN-4 protein expression in primary tumors (PRIM) and patient-matched distant metastases (MET). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Membranous NECTIN-4 protein expression was measured (H-score) by IHC in PRIM and corresponding MET (N = 137) and in a multicenter EV-treated cohort (N = 47). Progression-free survival (PFS) after initiation of EV treatment was assessed for the NECTIN-4-negative/weak (H-score 0-99) versus moderate/strong (H-score 100-300) subgroup. The specificity of the NECTIN-4 IHC staining protocol was validated by establishing CRISPR-Cas9-induced polyclonal NECTIN-4 knockouts. RESULTS: In our cohort, membranous NECTIN-4 expression significantly decreased during metastatic spread (Wilcoxon matched pairs P < 0.001; median H-score = 40; interquartile range, 0-140), with 39.4% of MET lacking membranous NECTIN-4 expression. In our multicenter EV cohort, absence or weak membranous NECTIN-4 expression (34.0% of the cohort) was associated with a significantly shortened PFS on EV (log-rank P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Membranous NECTIN-4 expression is frequently decreased or absent in mUC tissue. Of note, the clinical benefit of EV strongly depends on membranous NECTIN-4 expression. Thus, our results are of highest clinical relevance and argue for a critical reconsideration of the current practice and suggest that the NECTIN-4 receptor status should be determined (ideally in a metastatic/progressive lesion) before initiation of EV. See related commentary by Aggen et al., p. 1377.

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), and 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.