Erdafitinib in BCG-treated high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Medical Oncology. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with disease recurrence after bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) treatment and who are ineligible for/refuse radical cystectomy. FGFR alterations are commonly detected in NMIBC. We evaluated the activity of oral erdafitinib, a selective pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus intravesical chemotherapy in patients with high-risk NMIBC and select FGFR3/2 alterations following recurrence after BCG treatment. Patients and methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with recurrent, BCG-treated, papillary-only high-risk NMIBC (high-grade Ta/T1) and select FGFR alterations refusing or ineligible for radical cystectomy were randomized to 6 mg daily oral erdafitinib or investigator's choice of intravesical chemotherapy (mitomycin C or gemcitabine). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The key secondary endpoint was safety. Results: Study enrollment was discontinued due to slow accrual. Seventy-three patients were randomized 2: 1 to erdafitinib (n = 49) and chemotherapy (n = 24). Median follow-up for RFS was 13.4 months for both groups. Median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.9 months-not estimable] and was 11.6 months (95% CI 6.4-20.1 months) for chemotherapy, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI 0.1-0.6; nominal P value = 0.0008). In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. Conclusions: Erdafitinib prolonged RFS compared with intravesical chemotherapy in patients with papillary-only, high-risk NMIBC harboring FGFR alterations who had disease recurrence after BCG therapy and refused or were ineligible for radical cystectomy.Peer reviewe

Emergency Portacaval Shunt Versus Rescue Portacaval Shunt in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Emergency Treatment of Acutely Bleeding Esophageal Varices in Cirrhosis—Part 3

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is of singular importance because of the high mortality rate. Emergency portacaval shunt is rarely used today because of the belief, unsubstantiated by long-term randomized trials, that it causes frequent portal-systemic encephalopathy and liver failure. Consequently, portacaval shunt has been relegated solely to salvage therapy when endoscopic and pharmacologic therapies have failed. Question: Is the regimen of endoscopic sclerotherapy with rescue portacaval shunt for failure to control bleeding varices superior to emergency portacaval shunt? A unique opportunity to answer this question was provided by a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt conducted from 1988 to 2005. Unselected consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute bleeding esophageal varices were randomized to endoscopic sclerotherapy (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed and treatment was initiated within 8 h. Failure of endoscopic sclerotherapy was defined by strict criteria and treated by rescue portacaval shunt (n = 50) whenever possible. Ninety-six percent of patients had more than 10 years of follow-up or until death. Comparison of emergency portacaval shunt and endoscopic sclerotherapy followed by rescue portacaval shunt showed the following differences in measurements of outcomes: (1) survival after 5 years (72% versus 22%), 10 years (46% versus 16%), and 15 years (46% versus 0%); (2) median post-shunt survival (6.18 versus 1.99 years); (3) mean requirements of packed red blood cell units (17.85 versus 27.80); (4) incidence of recurrent portal-systemic encephalopathy (15% versus 43%); (5) 5-year change in Child’s class showing improvement (59% versus 19%) or worsening (8% versus 44%); (6) mean quality of life points in which lower is better (13.89 versus 27.89); and (7) mean cost of care per year ($39,200 versus$216,700). These differences were highly significant in favor of emergency portacaval shunt (all p < 0.001). Emergency portacaval shunt was strikingly superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy as well as to the combination of endoscopic sclerotherapy and rescue portacaval shunt in regard to all outcome measures, specifically bleeding control, survival, incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, improvement in liver function, quality of life, and cost of care. These results strongly support the use of emergency portacaval shunt as the first line of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis