← Back to Clinical Trials
Recruiting Phase 2 NCT06892860

Comparing 3 vs 6 Cycles of Platinum-based Chemotherapy Prior to Maintenance Avelumab in Advanced Urothelial Cancer

Trial Parameters

Condition Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Sponsor Queen Mary University of London
Study Type INTERVENTIONAL
Phase Phase 2
Enrollment 320
Sex ALL
Min Age 18 Years
Max Age N/A
Start Date 2021-12-16
Completion 2027-06-30
Interventions
Avelumab

Brief Summary

This is an adaptive, open-label, randomised phase II trial that aims to evaluate the impact of 3 vs 6 cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance avelumab in the quality of life of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. Initially, 224 eligible and evaluable patients (112 in each arm) will receive 3 cycles vs 6 cycles of 3-weekly gemcitabine plus cisplatin/carboplatin, followed by 2-weekly maintenance avelumab until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Avelumab treatment will be given up to a maximum of 2 years from the end of chemotherapy.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Willing and able to provide written informed consent. 2. Ability to comply with the protocol, including but not limited to, the repeated completion of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. 3. Age ≥ 18 years. 4. Histologically confirmed, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (i.e., cancer of the bladder, renal pelvis, ureter, or urethra). Patients with squamous or sarcomatoid differentiation or mixed cell types are eligible but a component of urothelial cancer is required. 5. Measurable disease by RECIST v1.1. 6. Eligible for gemcitabine/ cisplatin or gemcitabine/carboplatin. The following criteria are established for the use of carboplatin (patients not fulfilling the following carboplatin criteria should be considered for gemcitabine/ cisplatin): 1. GFR \<60 mL/min but ≥30 mL/min (measured by the Cockcroft-Gault formula or by local accepted standards). Subjects with a GFR ≥50 mL/min and no other cisplatin ineligibility criteria may be cons

Related Trials