In 2009, vinflunine was introduced as a second-line treatment to be used after the failure of platinum therapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The present study investigated the administered vinflunine to patients with mUC in standard clinical practice with the aim of evaluating treatment patterns, response, survival parameters and side-effects. Data were collected retrospectively from the first 100 mUC patients treated with vinflunine at three Nordic cancer centers associated with the Nordic Urothelial Cancer Oncology Group. The overall response rate was 23% and complete response was observed in one patient. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 2.8 (range, 0.5–34.3) and 6.3 (range, 0.3–39.7) months, respectively. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2 was present in 20% of the patients, and those patients exhibited significantly shorter mOS (4.1 vs. 7.0 months, P=0.001) and a significantly higher degree of grade 3/4 toxicity (P=0.026) compared with ECOG PS 0–1 patients. Furthermore, patients without visceral metastases had significantly longer mOS than patients with visceral metastases (10.6 vs. 6.0 months, P=0.008). The median number of cycles of vinflunine was 3 (range, 1–28). The current data confirms that vinflunine is an active agent for second-line treatment in an unselected clinical cohort of patients with mUC. ECOG PS and presence of visceral metastases were significant prognostic parameters. In particular, patients with ECOG PS 2 receiving vinflunine had a shorter mOS and a higher frequency of severe toxicity, and, thus, should be treated with caution. Furthermore, the present study observed large inter-individual differences in radiological response and OS, indicating the need for further development of improved patient selection tools to optimize vinflunine treatment in platinum-refractory mUC patients.

Background: Chemotherapy options in advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) remain limited. Here we evaluated the peptide‐based alkylating agent melphalan‐flufenamide (mel‐flufen) for UC. Methods: UC cell lines J82, RT4, TCCsup and 5637 were treated with mel‐flufen, alone or combined with cisplatin, gemcitabine, dasatinib or bestatin. Cell viability (MTT assay), intracellular drug accumulation (liquid chromatography) apoptosis induction (apoptotic cell nuclei morphology, western blot analysis of PARP‐1/caspase‐9 cleavage and Bak/Bax activation) were evaluated. Kinome alterations were characterized by PathScan array and phospho‐Src validated by western blotting. Aminopeptidase N (ANPEP) expression was evaluated in UC clinical specimens in relation to patient outcome. Results: In J82, RT4, TCCsup and 5637 UC cells, mel‐flufen amplified the intracellular loading of melphalan in part via aminopeptidase N (ANPEP), resulting in increased cytotoxicity compared to melphalan alone. Mel‐flufen induced apoptosis seen as activation of Bak/Bax, cleavage of caspase‐9/PARP‐1 and induction of apoptotic cell nuclei morphology. Combining mel‐flufen with cisplatin or gemcitabine in J82 cells resulted in additive cytotoxic effects and for gemcitabine also increased apoptosis induction. Profiling of mel‐flufen‐induced kinome alterations in J82 cells revealed that mel‐flufen alone did not inhibit Src phosphorylation. Accordingly, the Src inhibitor dasatinib sensitized for mel‐flufen cytotoxicity. Immunohistochemical analysis of the putative mel‐flufen biomarker ANPEP demonstrated prominent expression levels in tumours from 82 of 83 cystectomy patients. Significantly longer median overall survival was found in patients with high ANPEP expression (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Mel‐flufen alone or in combination with cisplatin, gemcitabine or Src inhibition holds promise as a novel treatment for UC.

Quality of life data from randomized trials are lacking in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the randomized NORDIC9-study, reduced-dose S1+oxaliplatin (SOx) showed superior efficacy compared to full-dose S1 monotherapy. We hypothesized that treatment with SOx does not result in inferior quality of life. Patients with mCRC aged ≥ 70 years and that were not a candidate for standard combination chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to receive either S1 or SOx. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was completed at baseline, after 9, and 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was global Quality of Life (QoL) at 9 weeks. For statistical analysis, a non-inferiority design was chosen applying linear mixed effects models for repeated measurements. The results were interpreted according to statistical significance and anchor-based, clinically relevant between-group minimally important differences (MID). A total of 160 patients aged (median (Interquartile range (IQR))) 78 years (76–81) were included. The QLQ-C30 questionnaire was completed by 150, 100, and 60 patients at baseline, at 9, and 18 weeks, respectively. The difference at 9 weeks in global QoL was 6.85 (95%CI -1.94; 15.65) and 7.37 (0.70; 14.05) in the physical functioning domain in favor of SOx exceeding the threshold for MID. At 18 weeks, the between-group MID in physical functioning was preserved. Dose-reduced combination chemotherapy may be recommended in vulnerable older patients with mCRC, rather than full-dose monotherapy.

Lessons Learned. First trial to report safety and activity of the microtubule inhibitor vinflunine plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib in post‐platinum metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) patients. A recommended phase II dose was identified for the treatment combination of vinflunine plus sorafenib, with main adverse events including fatigue, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypertension, and hyponatremia. An overall response rate of 41% to second‐line vinflunine plus sorafenib treatment in patients with platinum‐resistant mUC was confirmed. Background. Platinum‐progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a clinical challenge. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib has demonstrated varied activity in mUC. This trial was designed to examine safety and activity of vinflunine plus sorafenib in mUC. Methods. In addition to standard dose of vinflunine (320 or 280 mg/m 2 ), patients received sorafenib (400, 600, or 800 mg/day), in a 3 + 3 dose‐escalation phase I design. Results. Twenty‐two patients (median age 62.5 years) were included. Five patients received vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 and 17 received 280 mg/m 2 . The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sorafenib with vinflunine 280 mg/m 2 was 600 mg, and with vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 it was not determined, owing to toxicity. Adverse events (AEs) grades 3 + 4 consisted of neutropenia (6 patients), febrile neutropenia (5), and hyponatremia (5). The overall response rate (ORR) in the efficacy‐evaluable patients was 41% (7 of 17), all partial responses evaluated by RECIST version 1.1. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (1.8–41.7). Conclusion. The defined recommended phase II dose (RPTD) was vinflunine 280 mg/m 2 plus sorafenib 400 mg. Sorafenib was too toxic in combination with vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 . The ORR of 41% to this second‐line combination treatment of mUC is noteworthy and supports further trials.