Welcome, this website is intended for all international healthcare professionals in uro-oncology. By clicking the link below you are declaring and confirming that you are a healthcare professional.

You are here

Planned survival analysis from KEYNOTE-045: Phase 3, open-label study of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer (UC)

Dean F. Bajorin, Ronald De Wit, David J. Vaughn, Yves Fradet, Jae-Lyun Lee, Lawrence Fong, et al.

Editorial comment from Prof. Piotr Chlosta:
The third planned survival analysis of KEYNOTE-045 trial showed that in patients with urothelial cancer recurrence or progression after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival (OS) benefit and superior safety profile of pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine) were maintained with longer follow-up.



Second-line chemotherapies (chemo) for advanced UC have limited clinical benefit (OS, 7-9 mo). Data from the open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 study (NCT02256436) showed significantly longer OS with pembro v chemo (median, 10.3 v 7.4 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; P = 0.002) in recurrent, advanced UC. Data from a planned survival analysis are presented.


Pts had histologically or cytologically confirmed UC, progression after platinum, ECOG PS 0-2, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1), and ≤2 lines of systemic therapy. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or investigator’s choice of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 Q3W. Primary efficacy end points were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded central review). ORR (RECIST v1.1, blinded central review) was a secondary end point.


542 pts were enrolled (pembro, 270; chemo, 272). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between arms. As of Jan 18, 2017, median follow-up was 18.5 mo (range, 14.2-26.5). Median OS was significantly longer with pembro v chemo (10.3 v 7.4 mo; HR, 0.70; P< 0.001), and significance was maintained regardless of PD-L1 expression as measured by combined positive score (HR: CPS < 1%, 0.84; CPS ≥1%, 0.59; CPS < 10%, 0.76; CPS ≥10%, 0.57). OS benefit with pembro v chemo was seen regardless of age, ECOG PS, prior therapy, liver metastases, histology, and choice of chemo. The 18-mo OS rate (95% CI) was 36.1% (30.1%-42.0%) with pembro v 20.5% (15.2%-25.8%) with chemo (KM estimate). PFS was not different between arms. ORR was higher with pembro v chemo (21.1% v 11.0%), and median (range) duration of response was longer (not reached [1.6+-20.7+ mo] v 4.4 mo [1.4+-20.3]). 69% (pembro) v 36% (chemo) of responses lasted ≥12 mo. Fewer pts experienced a treatment-related AE with pembro v chemo (any grade, 61.3% v 90.2%; grade ≥3, 16.5% v 49.8%).


The OS benefit and superior safety profile of pembro over chemo are maintained with longer follow-up. Combined, these results support the potential of pembro as a new standard of care for patients with UC who previously received platinum. Clinical trial information: NCT02256436

© 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).


Subscribe to our E-Alert to keep up to date with the new items in the Resource Centre


URO ONCO is made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from:

The editorial independence of the resource centre is mandatory and recognized by the EAU and Elsevier.

The journal articles, videos and statements published on the resource centre have been selected independently and without influence from Elsevier, European Urology Editors or the sponsor and do not necessarily reflect their opinions or views.