This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

No abstract

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) provides substantial clinical benefits to cancer patients, but a large proportion of cancers do not respond to ICT. To date, the genomic underpinnings of primary resistance to ICT remain elusive. Here, we performed immunogenomic analysis of data from TCGA and clinical trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, with a particular focus on homozygous deletion of 9p21.3 (9p21 loss), one of the most frequent genomic defects occurring in ~13% of all cancers. We demonstrate that 9p21 loss confers “cold” tumor-immune phenotypes, characterized by reduced abundance of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes (TILs), particularly, T/B/NK cells, altered spatial TILs patterns, diminished immune cell trafficking/activation, decreased rate of PD-L1 positivity, along with activation of immunosuppressive signaling. Notably, patients with 9p21 loss exhibited significantly lower response rates to ICT and worse outcomes, which were corroborated in eight ICT trials of >1,000 patients. Further, 9p21 loss synergizes with PD-L1/TMB for patient stratification. A “response score” was derived by incorporating 9p21 loss, PD-L1 expression and TMB levels in pre-treatment tumors, which outperforms PD-L1, TMB, and their combination in identifying patients with high likelihood of achieving sustained response from otherwise non-responders. Moreover, we describe potential druggable targets in 9p21-loss tumors, which could be exploited to design rational therapeutic interventions.

Purpose: We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up, and exploratory biomarker analyses from the phase II CheckMate 275 trial to identify biomarkers of response to nivolumab in platinum-resistant metastatic or unresectable urothelial carcinoma (mUC).Patients and Methods: Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per blinded independent review committee (BIRC; using RECIST v1.1) in all treated patients and by tumor PD-L1 expression. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per BIRC using RECIST v1.1 and overall survival (OS) in all patients and by PD-L1 expression. Exploratory endpoints included safety and biomarker analyses of tumor mutational burden (TMB), PD-L1, and previously identified mutational signatures.Results: Of 270 treated patients, 139 had evaluable TMB. With 33.7 months' minimum follow-up, ORR per BIRC, median PFS, and median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] in all treated patients were 20.7% (16.1-26.1), 1.9 months (1.9-2.3), and 8.6 months (6.1-11.3), respectively. No new safety signals were identified. Higher TMB was associated (P < 0.05) with improved ORR [OR (95% CI): 2.13 (1.26-3.60)], PFS [HR: 0.75 (0.61-0.92)], and OS [HR: 0.73 (0.58-0.91)]. TMB combined with PD-L1 better predicted ORR, PFS, and OS than PD-L1 alone. Higher mutational signature 2 score was associated with better OS but did not improve the predictive value of TMB.Conclusions: These results support the durable antitumor activity of nivolumab and suggest that TMB may enrich for better response in mUC. Future studies of TMB/PD-L1 as biomarkers for response to nivolumab in randomized trials are warranted.