Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

When immunotherapy is not an option for metastatic bladder cancer, enfortumab vedotin (EV) monotherapy is an attractive choice over traditional cisplatin chemotherapy, especially if a rapid tumor response is critical or if the patient has baseline neuropathy or renal issues that make chemotherapy tolerance uncertain.

Related Insights

Unlike traditional chemotherapy, the EV+pembrolizumab combination is producing a "tail on the curve" in survival data. This indicates a significant minority of patients with metastatic bladder cancer are achieving durable, long-term responses—a phenomenon previously unseen and a paradigm shift for the disease.

The transformative efficacy of EV-Pembro has ushered in a new, aggressive treatment philosophy for both muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. The approach is to administer the combination upfront to gain rapid disease control, and only then make subsequent decisions about surgery, radiation, or further therapy.

The EV Pembro combination is the new first-line standard for metastatic bladder cancer, replacing platinum chemotherapy. This shift leaves clinicians without clear, trial-backed evidence for second-line treatment, as previous trials for other agents were all designed for post-platinum progression.

For elderly or frail patients with metastatic bladder cancer, treatment choice hinges on goals. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) monotherapy is preferred for a rapid response in symptomatic or bulky disease. In contrast, pembrolizumab monotherapy is better for a lower-intensity approach in patients with low-volume disease where durable benefit and quality of life are prioritized.

The B15 trial shows EV-Pembro is superior to chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, the true benchmark is now the Niagara study (chemo + durvalumab), which already beat chemo alone. The debate will focus on whether EV-Pembro offers a significant enough improvement to become the definitive standard over this new chemo-IO combination.

Despite the perception that cisplatin-ineligible patients have worse disease biology, the pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant EV Pembro were nearly identical (56-57%) in both cis-ineligible (KEYNOTE-905) and cis-eligible (KEYNOTE-B15) trials. This suggests the regimen's high efficacy may overcome underlying biological differences.

The demonstrated superiority of the enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab combination over platinum chemotherapy has effectively made the Galski criteria, used for determining cisplatin eligibility, irrelevant. This marks a major paradigm shift in how frontline bladder cancer is approached, moving beyond platinum-based decisions.

Giving EV Pembro perioperatively for muscle-invasive bladder cancer provides the best chance for a cure. Waiting to use it in the first-line metastatic setting is a major gamble, as many patients relapse and may not get a second chance at effective therapy. The consensus is to use the best treatment upfront.

A key lesson in bladder cancer is that patient attrition is rapid between lines of therapy; many who relapse from localized disease never receive effective later-line treatments. This reality provides a strong rationale for moving the most effective therapies, like EV-pembrolizumab, to earlier settings to maximize the number of patients who can benefit.

The success of EV-Pembro in perioperative trials has established it as a foundational treatment. The emerging clinical philosophy is to initiate EV-Pembro for a wide spectrum of muscle-invasive disease and then decide on subsequent steps, like surgery, based on the patient's response, marking a major strategic shift.