Patients preferred regimens that reflect a better treatment experience compared with OS benefit.2,a
There are now more available options for the treatment of 1L la/mUC, allowing physicians to better tailor treatments to patient goals.1,2
Several recent survey-based studies have highlighted an opportunity for oncologists and patients to establish common therapeutic objectives.2,3
Patients preferred regimens that reflect a better treatment experience compared with OS benefit.2,a
Find out how an expert manages UC in his patients with an individualized treatment approach
In randomized trials in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who received any 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy,
~ 8 In 10
Patients
achieved disease control8,9,b
achieved disease control8,9,b
Subsequent 1L maintenance treatment may extend the overall survival benefit in patients who do not progress on 1L chemotherapy.8,10
aAccording to a study investigating oncologist and patient preferences for the 1L treatment of advanced UC.
bDisease control was defined as complete response, partial response, non-complete response or non-progressive disease, or stable disease for ≥6 weeks according to RECIST, version 1.1, as recorded from randomization until disease progression or death from any cause.
1L=first line; la/mUC=locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma; OS=overall survival; UC=urothelial carcinoma.
References: 1. Kawashima A, Ishizuya Y, Yamamoto Y, et al. Recent developments and future directions of first-line systemic therapy combined with immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a historical perspective on treatment evolution. Int J Clin Oncol. 2024;29(8):1096-1104. 2. Grivas P, Veeranki P, Chiu K, et al. Preferences for first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma among US practicing oncologists and patients. Future Oncol. 2023;19(5):369-383. 3. Apolo AB, Michaels-Igbokwe C, Simon NI, et al. Patient preferences for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: an application of multidimensional thresholding. Patient. 2025;18(1):77-87. doi:10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3. 4. Bavencio Prescribing Information. EMD Serono, Inc. 5. Cathomas R, Lorch A, Bruins HM, et al. The 2021 updated European Association of Urology guidelines on metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2022;81(1):95-103. 6. Galsky MD, Hahn NM, Rosenberg J, et al. Treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer "unfit" for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2432-2438. 7. Powles T, Park SH, Caserta C, et al. Avelumab first-line maintenance for advanced urothelial carcinoma: results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Trial after ≥2 years of follow-up [supplementary appendix]. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(19):3486-3492. 8. Powles T, Park SH, Voog E, et al. Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(13):1218-1230. 9. Bellmunt J, Valderrama BP, Puente J, et al. Recent therapeutic advances in urothelial carcinoma: a paradigm shift in disease management. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;174:103683. 10. Grivas P, Monk BJ, Petrylak D, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors as switch or continuation maintenance therapy in solid tumors: rationale and current state. Target Oncol. 2019;14(5):505-525. 11. Kearney M, Zhang L, Hubscher E, et al. Undertreatment in patients with advanced urothelial cancer: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Future Oncol. 2024;20(16):1123-1137. doi:10.2217/fon-2023-0298. 12. Niegisch G, Gerullis H, Lin SW, et al. A real-world data study to evaluate treatment patterns, clinical characteristics and survival outcomes for first- and second-line treatment in locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer patients in Germany. J Cancer. 2018;9(8):1337-1348. 13. Bamias A, Tzannis K, Harshman LC, et al. Impact of contemporary patterns of chemotherapy utilization on survival in patients with advanced cancer of the urinary tract: a Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2);361-369.