Kristi Rosa

Padcev plus Keytruda maintained superior survival and progression-free benefits over chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer, reinforcing its SOC status.

Among patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, frontline treatment with Padcev (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) plus Keytruda (pembrolizumab) continued to show superior efficacy over chemotherapy, including sustained progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits and durable responses, study results have shown.

Updated findings from the phase 3 EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 trial presented during a rapid oral session at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium indicated that at a median follow-up of 29.1 months, the doublet (442 patients) led to a median PFS of 12.5 months versus 6.3 months with chemotherapy (444 patients). The 12- and 24-month PFS rates with Padcev plus Keytruda were 51.4% and 37.1%, respectively; with chemotherapy, these rates were 21.7% and 12.6%.

The doublet also resulted in a median OS of 33.8 months versus 15.9 months with chemotherapy. The 12-month OS rates in the respective arms were 77.7% and 61.1%; at 24 months, these rates were 60.1% and 35.4%.

“After 2.5 years of median follow-up, we continue to show a compelling benefit for [Padcev] and [Keytruda] over chemotherapy,” Dr. Thomas B. Powles, said in a presentation of the data. “Median OS is 34 months, [which] I think is unprecedented compared with what we saw before. The frequency of treatment-related adverse effects [TRAEs] is consistent with what we saw previously…These data reinforce [Padcev] and [Keytruda] as the new standard of care in frontline urothelial cancer.”

Progression-free survival: the time a patient lives without their disease spreading or worsening.

Overall survival: the time a patient lives, regardless of disease status.

Objective response rate: patients who responded partially or completely to treatment.

Duration of response: how long a patient responds to treatment.

Complete response: the disappearance of cancer.

Powles is a professor of genitourinary oncology, lead for Solid Tumor Research, and director of Barts Cancer Centre at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, in London.

Participants were randomized to receive Padcev at 1.25 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 and Keytruda at 200 mg on day 1 for 3 cycles versus chemotherapy in the form of cisplatin or carboplatin plus gemcitabine for a maximum of six cycles. Treatment continued until progressive disease by blinded independent central review (BICR), clinical progression, intolerable toxicity or the maximum cycles had been completed.

Data from the primary analysis showed that treatment with the doublet led to a median PFS of 12.5 months, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, at 6.3 months. Moreover, the median OS with Padcev plus Keytruda was 31.5 months versus 16.1 months with chemotherapy.

These data supported the FDA’s decision to convert the accelerated approval of Padcev plus Keytruda in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer into a regular approval in December 2023. The regimen has also been approved on a global scale, including in Japan and Canada. “It resulted in transformative care across the world,” Powles noted.

The data cutoff date for the current analysis of the study was Aug. 8, 2024. With 29.1 months of median follow-up, 12% of patients on the doublet arm were still receiving treatment versus no patients on the chemotherapy arm. Moreover, 49% of those in the investigative arm versus 30% of those on the control arm remained on study.

Notably, the PFS benefit derived with Padcev plus Keytruda over chemotherapy proved to be consistent across prespecified subgroups, irrespective of primary disease site of origin, liver metastases, PD-L1 expression, platinum eligibility, presence of metastatic disease and renal function.

The same was true for OS benefit. “Again, the benefit is seen across these subgroups of patients; it doesn’t matter about platinum eligibility, liver metastases, PD-L1 expression, sites of metastatic disease, upper tract disease or performance status,” Powles noted.

Notably, the survival benefit achieved with the doublet was consistent with the overall population irrespective of cisplatin eligibility. In cisplatin-eligible patients, Padcev plus Keytruda (244 patients) led to a median OS of 36.7 months versus 18.7 months with chemotherapy (234 patients). In those not eligible for cisplatin, the median OS with the doublet (198 patients) and chemotherapy (210 patients) was 25.6 months and 12.7 months, respectively.

The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in the investigative arm was 67.5% versus 44.2% with chemotherapy. The median duration of response (DOR) with the doublet was 23.3 months versus seven months with chemotherapy. The 12-month DOR rates with the doublet and chemotherapy were 67.5% and 35.1%, respectively; the 24-month rates were 49.4% and 24%.

“We were able to start looking at things like DOR because of the extended follow-up, and here, we show that among the responders, the probability of maintained response at two years was 50%,” Powles said. “Remember, it’s important to recognize that about 70% of these patients are responding, and they maintain their response at two years. In my opinion, I think that’s transformative. We also showed that 30% of patients had complete response [CR], which, again, was unprecedented in this setting.”

When taking a closer look at the duration of confirmed CR (cCR), they found that the probability of maintained CR at 24 months was 74.3% with Padcev plus Keytruda versus 43.2% with chemotherapy.

Powles concluded by noting that with an additional one year of follow-up, the toxicity profile of the doublet remained consistent with prior reports. No new safety signals were observed, and the frequency and grade of treatment-related side effects were consistent with what was shared in the primary analysis of the trial.

“EV-302: Updated analysis from the phase 3 global study of enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (EV+P) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC),” By Dr. Thomas B. Powles et al., Journal 

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to 

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Articles

Frontline treatment with enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (Padcev) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrates superior efficacy over chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The combination therapy shows significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with consistent benefits across various patient subgroups. The phase 3 EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 trial results support the FDA's regular approval of the regimen, highlighting its transformative impact on global urothelial cancer care. The safety profile remains consistent, with no new adverse effects observed.

Padcev plus Keytruda was found to maintain benefit over chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

Padcev Plus Keytruda Results in Survival, Progression Benefits in Urothelial Carcinoma

Among patients with MIBC, adjuvant Opdivo showed a continued benefit in survival versus placebo.© stock.adobe.com

Among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), treatment with adjuvant Opdivo (nivolumab) continued to showcase a benefit in disease-free survival (DFS) versus placebo, irrespective of previous treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, according to data from an analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate-274 trial shared during the 

Adjuvant: any additional cancer treatment given after the primary treatment.

Disease-free survival: the time after treatment when someone is free of signs or symptoms of a disease.

Neoadjuvant: type of cancer treatment that is given before the main treatment.

Overall survival (OS): the average length of time that patients are alive after being diagnosed with or starting treatment for a disease.

In all randomized patients with MIBC, the median DFS was 25.6 months with Opdivo (353 patients) versus 8.5 months with placebo (356 patients). The 24-month DFS rates in the respective arms were 50.5% and 35.9%; at 36 months, these rates were 46.8% and 32%. The median follow-up in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 36.1 months; in the MIBC population, the median follow-up was 34.5 months.

In patients with MIBC who previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median DFS with Opdivo (279 patients) was 19.6 months versus 8.3 months with placebo (281 patients). In patients with MIBC who had not previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median DFS was 25.9 months with Opdivo versus 13.7 months with placebo.

Data from the interim overall survival (OS) analysis indicated that in all patients with MIBC, the median OS was not reached versus 39.9 months with placebo. The 24- and 36-month OS rates in the Opdivo arm were 75.3% and 64.2%, respectively; in the placebo arm, these rates were 66.2% and 53.7%, respectively.

In all randomized patients with MIBC and a tumor PD-L1 expression of at least 1%, the median OS with Opdivo was again not reached versus 37.6 months with placebo. Those with MIBC who received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy adjuvant Opdivo experienced a median OS of 55.2 months versus 40.2 months with placebo. Those with MIBC without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced a median OS that was not reached with Opdivo versus 37.7 months with placebo.

“The improvements demonstrated in patients with MIBC provide additional support for adjuvant Opdivo as a standard of care for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma [MIUC,] including MIBC after radical surgery, and regardless of prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Matthew I. Milowsky said in a presentation of the data. “Of note, subcutaneous Opdivo was approved for multiple indications, including as adjuvant therapy for MIUC by the FDA late last year, and might provide an alternative for patients across tumors.”

Milowsky is the George Gabriel and Frances Gable Villere Distinguished Professor of Bladder and Genitourinary Cancer Research, co-leader of the University of North Carolina (UNC) Lineberger Clinical Research Program, section chief of Genitourinary Oncology and co-director of the Urologic Oncology Program at UNC School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

The randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 CheckMate-274 trial enrolled patients with ypT2 to ypT4a or ypN-positive MIUC who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those with pT3a to pT4a or pN-positive MIUC without previously neoadjuvant chemotherapy who were not eligible for or refused adjuvant cisplatin chemotherapy were also included. Patients underwent radical surgery within the past 120 days and had to be free of disease within four weeks of undergoing randomization.

Participants were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) Opdivo or placebo at 240 mg every two weeks. They received adjuvant treatment for up to 1 year. Stratification factors included tumor PD-L1 status (at least 1% versus less than 1% or indeterminate), prior receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus no) or nodal status.

The primary end points of the trial were DFS in all randomized patients and in the subset of patients with a tumor PD-L1 expression of at least 1%. Data showed that adjuvant Opdivo significantly improved DFS versus placebo in patients with high-risk MIUC post–radical surgery with or without cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Extended follow-up data with a median of three years indicated that Opdivo continued to improve DFS versus placebo in all randomized patients, those with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% and those with MIBC. The first report of OS outcomes showed that survival favored Opdivo versus placebo in all randomized patients and the subset of patients with a PD-L1 expression of at least 1%.

For the post-hoc analysis shared at conference, the key end points were DFS in all randomized patients with MIBC and in those with MIBC according to previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and OS in all randomized patients with MIBC, those with MIBC and a tumor PD-L1 expression of 1% or higher and those with MIBC according to prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Milowsky said that baseline clinical and demographic characteristics were generally well-balanced between the arms. “[They] were largely consistent between the ITT and MIBC populations. About 80% of patients in CheckMate-274 had bladder tumor origin. Of those patients with MIBC, about 50% received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy and about 40% had tumor PD-L1 positivity,” he said.

Additional efficacy data indicated that in patients with MIBC who received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 24-month DFS rates with Opdivo and placebo were 48.9% versus 33.2%, respectively; the 36-month rates were 46.5% versus 28.9%, respectively. In patients with MIBC who had not received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 24-month DFS rates in the Opdivo and placebo arms were 52.1% versus 38.8%, respectively; the 36-month DFS rates were 46.9% versus 35.4%, respectively.

In all patients with MIBC and a tumor PD-L1 expression of at least 1%, the 24-month OS rate with Opdivo was 82.6% versus 67.4% with placebo; the respective 36-month rates were 71.8% and 52.0%. In those with MIBC and prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 24-month OS rates with Opdivo and placebo were 73.6% versus 63.2%, respectively; the 36-month rates were 64.5% and 53.4%, respectively. In those with MIBC without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 24-month OS rate with Opdivo was 77.1% versus 69.4% with placebo; the respective OS rates at 36 months were 63.8% versus 53.9%.

“Safety in patients with MIBC was consistent with previous data in ITT patients, and no new safety signals were identified,” Milowsky concluded.

“Adjuvant nivolumab vs placebo for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: additional efficacy outcomes including overall survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer from CheckMate-274,” by Dr. Matthew I Milowsky, et al. 

“FDA approves nivolumab and hyaluronidase-nvhy for subcutaneous injection.” FDA. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-nivolumab-and-hyaluronidase-nvhy-subcutaneous-injection

“Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma,” by Dr. Dean F. Bajorin. 

“Adjuvant nivolumab in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: Expanded efficacy from CheckMate 274,” by Dr. Matthew D. Galsky. 

Adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) compared to placebo, regardless of prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as demonstrated in the CheckMate-274 trial. The trial showed a median DFS of 25.6 months with Opdivo versus 8.5 months with placebo. Overall survival (OS) also favored Opdivo, with higher 24- and 36-month OS rates. The trial's findings support Opdivo as a standard adjuvant therapy for high-risk MIBC, with consistent safety profiles and no new safety signals identified.

Among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, adjuvant Opdivo showed a continued benefit in survival versus placebo.

Adjuvant Opdivo Continues to Provide Survival Benefit in Patients With High-Risk MIUC

Lonsurf showed a numerical but not significant improvement in disease-free survival over placebo in patients with resected stage 4 colorectal cancer.

Among the full population of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had molecular residual disease after curative resection who were enrolled to the phase 3 ALTAIR study, Lonsurf (trifluridine/tipiracil) did not result in significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) over treatment with a placebo, but showed benefit in patients with stage 4 disease.

Findings, which were shared during the 2025 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, showed that in all patients, the median DFS with Lonsurf (122 patients) was 9.3 months versus 5.55 months with placebo (121 patients), which translated to a numerical but not statistically significant improvement with Lonsurf. Moreover, in the Lonsurf arm, the DFS rates at six, 12, 18 and 24 months were 70.5%, 31.8%, 20.8% and 16.9%, respectively; in the placebo arm, these respective rates were 45.5%, 26.8%, 21.5% and 14.5%.

In the subgroup of patients with stage 4 disease, the benefit of Lonsurf (34 patients) was reported to be highly pronounced versus placebo (32 patients), with a median DFS of 9.76 months and 3.96 months, respectively. In the Lonsurf arm, the six-, 12-, 18- and 14-month DFS rates were 70.47%, 27.57%, 9.19% and 4.6%, respectively; in the placebo arm, these respective rates were 31.25%, 12.5%, 3.12% and not reached.

“Overall survival data were immature, with only 24 events observed across both arms,” lead study author Dr. Hideaki Bando of the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the National Cancer Center Hospital East in Kashiwa, Japan, and colleagues, wrote in a late-breaking poster spotlighting the data.

Disease-free survival (DFS): time without cancer after treatment.

Overall survival: percentage of patients alive after treatment.

Metastasis: spread of cancer to other body parts.

Microsatellite-stable disease: no defects in DNA microsatellites.

Molecular residual disease: trace cancer cells detected after remission.

Curative resection: surgery to remove all tumor tissue for cure.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA): tumor DNA found in the blood.

 which are biomarkers used to measure tumor presence or response to treatment in blood.

“Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups, and 96.3% of patients received standard-of-care treatment before enrollment,” the study authors wrote. In all patients, 64% were younger than 70 years, 58% were male, 71% had left-sided colon as their primary tumor site and 45% had stage 3 disease. Thirty-six percent received neoadjuvant treatment, and 46% received adjuvant treatment. At one-month post-operation, 53% tested positive for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Most patients had BRAF wild-type disease (96%), and 61% had RAS wild-type disease (61%). Ninety-eight percent of patients had microsatellite-stable disease.

Additional efficacy findings were reported for patients with non-stage 4 disease. In this group, the median DFS with Lonsurf was 9.26 months versus 6.05 months with placebo.

Moreover, the baseline MTM/mL levels proved to be significantly higher in patients with stage 4 disease versus non-stage 4 disease (0.68 versus 0.32). “The [Lonsurf] benefit was significantly pronounced with higher MTM/mL, with linear benefit observed with increasing MTM/mL values at the enrollment time point,” the study authors underscored in the abstract.

Regarding safety, any-grade side effects occurred in 98.4% of patients in the Lonsurf arm versus 57% of those in the placebo arm; these effects were grade 3 (severe) or worse for 73% and 3.3% of patients, respectively. Serious side effects were experienced by 4.9% of those in the Lonsurf arm; none occurred in the placebo arm. Side effects led to discontinuation for 6.6% of patients in the Lonsurf arm. No side effects proved to be fatal in either arm.

Any-grade side effects related to Lonsurf or placebo occurred in 98.4% and 33.1% of patients, respectively; they were grade 3 or worse for 71.3% and 0.8% of patients, respectively. Only one serious treatment-related side effect was reported in the Lonsurf arm, and five treatment-related side effects led to discontinuation in this arm.

“No new safety signals were identified,” the study authors wrote.

Testing ctDNA for molecular residual disease has proven to serve as a strong predictor for CRC recurrence, although the effectiveness of starting systemic treatment to prevent or delay recurrence in patients with molecular disease after curative surgery remains an open question. With ALTAIR, investigators sought to determine the clinical relevance of leveraging Lonsurf as a pre-emptive therapy for patients who were enrolled to the CIRCULATE-Japan study and who had positive ctDNA following curative resection.

ALTAIR enrolled patients with CRC who received curative resection of primary and/or metastatic sites with or without standard adjuvant treatment and who prospectively tested ctNDA positive per the Signatera assay within three months before enrollment and did not experience recurrence per CT imaging.

Patients were then randomly assigned to receive either Lonsurf or placebo for the duration of six months. Investigators performed CT and ctDNA analyses every two months for the first year and every three months for the second year, followed by additional CT analyses every six months for the third year. DFS served as the primary end point of the study.

Of the 243 patients who were registered in the trial, 122 were included in the Lonsurf arm, and 121 were included in the placebo arm; 72 and 59 patients, respectively, discontinued. In the Lonsurf arm, the most common reason for discontinuation was primary disease relapse (34 patients), followed by side effect (eight patients) and the planned start date of the second course being set as the first day of treatment and the start of the next course being delayed beyond the same day of the week, four weeks later (eight patients).

“A randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) versus placebo in patients with molecular residual disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC): the ALTAIR study.” By Dr. Dr. Hideaki Bando, et al. 

For more news on cancer updates, research and education,

don’t forget to subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Lonsurf (trifluridine/tipiracil) did not significantly improve disease-free survival (DFS) over placebo in colorectal cancer patients with molecular residual disease post-curative resection, except in stage 4 patients. The ALTAIR study showed a median DFS of 9.3 months with Lonsurf versus 5.55 months with placebo, but this was not statistically significant. Stage 4 patients showed a pronounced benefit with Lonsurf. Safety analysis revealed high rates of side effects with Lonsurf, though no new safety signals were identified. The study highlights the potential of ctDNA as a predictor for CRC recurrence.

In patients with residual disease after curative resection of colorectal cancer, Lonsurf showed a numerical improvement in DFS, though not significant.

Lonsurf Shows Survival Benefit Over Placebo in Stage 4 Colorectal Cancer

Pelareorep and chemo with or without Tecentriq was safe newly diagnosed, metastatic PDAC 

Among patients with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), treatment with pelareorep and modified chemotherapy consisting of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, irinotecan and fluorouracil) with or without Tecentriq (atezolizumab) showed an acceptable safety profile and had no new safety signals, according to data.

Results were garnered from the safety run-in portion of the ongoing phase 1/2 GOBLET study which was shared the

2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Microsatellite instability–high: condition where cancer cells have many mutations in microsatellites.

Mismatch repair–deficient: a condition where errors in DNA base pairing are not routinely corrected.

Dihydropyridine dehydrogenase: an enzyme that breaks down uracil and thymine, and is involved in breaking down certain chemotherapy drugs.

Objective response rate: the percentage of patients in a clinical trial who have a partial or complete response to a treatment.

Overall survival: the amount of time a patient lives after being diagnosed cancer.

Disease control rate: the percentage of patients with advanced cancer who have a response after treatment.

All nine patients who received treatment experienced at least one side effect, with seven patients experiencing grade 3 (severe) or higher effects. A total of six patients experienced serious side effects, and three patients died after data cutoff although no deaths were determined to be related to treatment.

“Observed [side effects] were consistent with the known safety profiles of the study drugs,” lead study author Dr. Thomas Seufferlein, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Ulm University Hospital in Ulm, Germany, and colleagues, wrote in a poster. “An independent data safety monitoring board and the German regulatory authorities have approved the study to continue full enrollment. Safety of these combination therapies will continue to be monitored.”

Although only a small subset of patients with metastatic PDAC who have microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient tumors experience efficacy with immunotherapy, previous data have suggested that the non-genetically modified reovirus pelareorep could have potential synergy with checkpoint inhibitors. Specifically, when the agent was paired with Abraxane (nab-paclitaxel), gemcitabine and Tecentriq, it elicited responses in patients with metastatic PDAC.

Cohort 5 of the open-label, multiple-cohort, phase 1/2 GOBLET study is enrolling patients with confirmed metastatic PDAC who are at least 18 years of age and are candidates to receive mFOLFIRINOX. They must have radiographically measurable disease, acceptable organ function and known low or absent dihydropyridine dehydrogenase activity. Patients could not have previously received systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease and it could not have been longer than six months since their last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. They also could not have prior exposure to checkpoint inhibition.

For stage 1, patients are being randomized to receive pelareorep plus chemotherapy and Tecentriq (arm A; four patients) or pelareorep plus mFOLFIRINOX (arm B; five patients). Pelareorep is administered on days one, two, eight, nine, 15 and 16; chemotherapy is given on days one and 15; and Tecentriq is given on days two and 16 of each 28-day cycle. One or both arms may be expanded to stage 2.

The primary objectives of the study include evaluating the safety and tolerability as well as the objective response rates achieved with pelareorep plus chemotherapy with or without Tecentriq. Secondary objectives include progression-free survival, overall survival, survival rates at 12 and 24 months, duration of response and disease control rate.

The three-patient safety run-in for both arms of this cohort have been enrolled and all completed the one-month evaluation period that was required.

The most common grade 3 or higher side effects to occur in both arms were nausea (44.4%), increased y-GGT (22.2%) and abdominal pain (22.2%). Serious side effects reported in all patients were nausea (22.2%), COVID-19 (20%), abdominal pain (11.1%), acute kidney injury (11.1%), diarrhea (11.1%), fatigue (11.1%), general health deterioration (11.1%), hypophysitis (11.1%), ileus (11.1%), infection (11.1%), infusion reaction (11.1%), pulmonary embolism (11.1%) and vomiting (11.1%).

“Tumor response results to pelareorep plus mFOLFIRINOX with or without [Tecentriq] therapy are pending,” the study authors concluded. “Enrollment into cohort 5 of the GOBLET study will continue —Efficacy results will be reported when available.”

“GOBLET Study: Results of The Safety Run-In For First-Line Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) Patients Treated With Pelareorep + Modified FOLFIRINOX +/- Azezolizumab” by Dr. Thomas Seufferlein, et al., 

The ongoing phase 1/2 GOBLET study evaluates the safety and efficacy of pelareorep combined with modified FOLFIRINOX, with or without Tecentriq, in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Initial results indicate an acceptable safety profile, with no new safety signals. All patients experienced side effects, with some severe cases, but no treatment-related deaths. The study continues to enroll patients, focusing on safety, tolerability, and response rates. Efficacy results are pending, and the study aims to explore potential synergy between pelareorep and checkpoint inhibitors.

Pelareorep plus chemotherapy with or without Tecentriq had an acceptable safety profile in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Kristi Rosa

Padcev Plus Keytruda Results in Survival, Progression Benefits in Urothelial Carcinoma

Adjuvant Opdivo Continues to Provide Survival Benefit in Patients With High-Risk MIUC

Lonsurf Shows Survival Benefit Over Placebo in Stage 4 Colorectal Cancer

Pelareorep With Chemo and Tecentriq Shows Acceptable Safety in Metastatic PDAC

Latest News