We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Success with shorter, fixed-duration ADC regimens in perioperative bladder cancer trials is prompting oncologists to evolve their thinking in the metastatic setting. The conversation is shifting away from indefinite treatment towards stopping therapy earlier for patients with deep responses.
In real-world practice, oncologists are granting treatment breaks, or 'holidays,' to metastatic bladder cancer patients who achieve major responses on enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab. This practice, driven by toxicity management and quality of life concerns, is common despite the lack of formal trial data to guide the optimal duration or timing of discontinuation.
After years of treatment intensification, a new focus in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is de-escalation. Trials like ADREAM are evaluating planned treatment interruptions for patients with excellent responses, aiming to provide 'treatment-free intervals' that improve quality of life without sacrificing efficacy.
Achieving a pathologic complete response (path CR) in the bladder after neoadjuvant therapy is a marker of drug efficacy, not a signal to stop treatment. Because patients die from metastatic, not local, disease, a path CR should be seen as a reason to "double down" on the effective systemic therapy to eradicate micrometastases.
For patients with oligometastatic disease who achieve a deep PSA response (e.g., to zero), oncologists consider finite treatment durations (e.g., 18-24 months) followed by observation. This "do less harm" approach challenges the standard of continuous therapy until progression, aiming for long-term treatment-free intervals.
The anticipated approval of the highly effective EV-Pembro combination in the perioperative setting will create a new clinical challenge. When these patients eventually relapse years later, clinicians will face a dilemma: re-challenge with the same potent regimen that worked before or switch to older, likely less effective chemotherapies.
Some oncologists are stopping guideline-supported perioperative treatment regimens early if a patient achieves a pathologic complete response (pCR) from neoadjuvant therapy alone. This practice is considered premature and risky, as data from dedicated de-escalation trials like VOLGA is not yet available to support it.
As multiple effective Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) become available, the primary clinical challenge is no longer *if* they work, but *how* to use them best. Key unanswered questions involve optimal sequencing, dosing for treatment versus maintenance, and overall length of therapy, mirroring issues already seen in breast cancer.
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.
The success of new treatments like immunotherapy and ADCs leads to more patients achieving a deep response. This high efficacy makes patients question the necessity of a radical cystectomy, a life-altering surgery, creating an urgent need for data-driven, bladder-sparing protocols.
A contrarian viewpoint, dubbed the "Gillison Paradox," argues that patients achieving a complete response are precisely the ones who should receive more therapy. Their strong response indicates drug sensitivity, making it logical to continue treatment to eradicate any remaining micrometastatic disease, rather than de-escalating.