Benign Conditions

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Bladder Cancer

Female Urology

Genitourinary Cancers

Genomic Testing

Hormone Therapy

Kidney Cancer

Challenging Anatomy

Innovative Techniques

Laser Lithotripsy

PCNL Tech & Devices

Ureteroscopy Tech & Devices

Kidney Stones

Men's Health

Next-Generation Imaging

Voiding Dysfunction

OAB and Incontinence

Pediatrics

Controveries in Urologic Cancer

Drug Therapy

Prostate Cancer

Sexual Dysfunction

UTUC

Cosmetic Surgery

Urologic Surgery

Business

Practice Management

Malpractice Consult

Health Law & Policy

Media

Case-Based Peer Perspectives

Investigator Perspectives 

Medical World News

Podcasts

Urology Medical Perspectives

UTv Videos

Peer Exchange

Special Report

Virtual Tumor Board

Insights

Medcast

Peers & Perspectives

Conferences

Conference Listing

Conference Previews 

Conference Recaps

Publications

Urology Times Journal

Editorial Advisory Board

Urologists in Cancer Care

Supplements and Featured Publications

Clinical Forums Recaps

CME/CE

Resources

Begin Your Journey: Tackling Burnout

Live Events

Interactive Tools

Job Board

Partners

Treatment Landscape Evolutions

Subscribe

Articles

Benjamin P. Saylor is associate editor of Urology Times, an Advanstar Communications publication.

Take a look back through some of the top stories from the first half of the year.

Urology in focus: Key moments from 2025

The phase 2 Co-PSMA trial enrolled 50 patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.

Enrollment goal met in trial of 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA vs. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT

The SOPHIA2 trial will assess the safety and efficacy of the UroActive implant in  men with SUI.

FDA, French ANSM greenlight pivotal trial of UroActive smart implant for male SUI

The new drug application for TAR-200 is supported by data from cohort 2 of the phase 2b SunRISe-1 trial.

FDA grants priority review to NDA for TAR-200 in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC

Urology Times is the leading resource for urologists & allied health professionals offering clinical analysis, policy perspectives, & practical advice.

About Us

Advertise

Editorial

Contact Us

Terms and Conditions

Privacy

Do not sell my Personnal Information

Urology Times – News & Insights for Urologists & Health Professionals

Facebook

LinkedIn

Spotlight

Peers and Perspectives

Clinical

1rem

Authors

As health care reform and payment policies evolve, LUGPA is ensuring that independent urologists have a strong voice in Washington and the resources they need to sustain successful practices, said Richard G. Harris, MD, LUGPA president, at the association’s 2019 annual meeting in Chicago.

LUGPA president: Association will stay vocal in 2020 and beyond

Independent urologists provide the same quality of care for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer as urologists in largely academic settings, compared with prior studies, according to research presented at LUGPA’s 2019 annual meeting in Chicago.

Men on AS receive guideline-driven care from community practices

The FDA has accepted a new drug application (NDA) for zoliflodacin, an investigational first-in-class, single-dose, spiropyrimidinetrione oral antibiotic for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older with uncomplicated gonorrhea, Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics announced in a news release.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date for the application is December 15, 2025.

Zoliflodacin is an oral antibiotic that inhibits type II topoisomerase, a bacterial enzyme that plays a key role in bacterial function and reproduction. According to the company, “If approved, zoliflodacin would be the first new antibiotic for treating gonorrhea in decades.”

The FDA has also granted a Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation to zoliflodacin, which enables the agent to benefit from priority review and market exclusivity.

“Today’s acceptance of the zoliflodacin NDA marks significant progress toward delivering health care providers with a potential new oral treatment option for uncomplicated gonorrhea, including infections caused by drug-resistant strains,” said David Altarac, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics, in the news release.

 “We look forward to working closely with the FDA during its review and, if approved, we are committed to expediting the availability of zoliflodacin to patients in the U.S.”

The NDA for zoliflodacin is supported by data from several clinical trials conducted through a collaboration with the Global Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership (GARDP). This portfolio of studies includes a pivotal phase 3 trial (NCT03959527) that evaluated zoliflodacin vs a standard of care (SOC) regimen (500 mg ceftriaxone intramuscular plus 1g oral azithromycin) in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea.

Overall, the trial met its primary end point by demonstrating that zoliflodacin was non-inferior to the SOC regimen regarding microbiological response at the urogenital site at the test of cure visit (6 +/- 2 days following treatment). Specifically, the microbiological cure rate was 90.9% in the zoliflodacin arm vs 96.2% in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm, representing a difference of 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 8.7%) across patients in the micro-intent-to-treat (ITT) population.

The 2 cohorts also demonstrated comparable results on the trial’s secondary end point of microbiological response at extragenital (rectal or pharyngeal) sites. Specifically, at pharyngeal sites, the cure rate was 79.2% in the zoliflodacin arm vs 78.6% in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm (difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -20.8 to 16.3). At rectal sites, the cure rate was 87.3% and 88.6%, respectively (difference, 1.23%; 95% CI, -14.4 to 12.6).

Zoliflodacin was generally well-tolerated in the trial. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 46.2% of patients in the zoliflodacin arm vs 46.4% of patients in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin arm. The most common TEAEs in the zoliflodacin arm included headache (9.9%), neutropenia (6.8%), and leukopenia (3.9%).

There were no deaths or serious adverse events reported in either arm.

In total, the phase 3 trial included 930 patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea, including patients living with HIV. The study enrolled participants across 16 clinical trial sites in the US, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Thailand.

According to Innoviva, the phase 3 study was “the largest clinical trial ever conducted for a new treatment against gonorrhea infection.”

Those enrolled in the study were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 3 g single-dose, oral zoliflodacin (n = 621) or to 500 mg ceftriaxone intramuscular plus 1g oral azithromycin (n = 309). The primary end point was microbiological cure by culture at urogenital sites in the micro-ITT populations, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. The trial’s secondary end point was microbiological cure at extragenital sites.

“This important milestone demonstrates the crucial role that public-private partnerships can play in tackling the escalating global antimicrobial resistance crisis,” said Manica Balasegaram, Executive Director of GARDP, in the news release.

 “If zoliflodacin is approved, this collaboration paves the way for millions of people across the world to get access to a potentially powerful new drug to treat multidrug-resistant gonorrhea.”

1. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics receives FDA New Drug Application acceptance for zoliflodacin, a first-in-class oral antibiotic for uncomplicated gonorrhea in adults. News release. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics. Published online and accessed June 10, 2025. https://innovivaspecialtytherapeutics.com/innoviva-specialty-therapeutics-receives-fda-new-drug-application-acceptance-for-zoliflodacin-a-first-in-class-oral-antibiotic-for-uncomplicated-gonorrhea-in-adults/

2. FDA Grants Priority Review for Zoliflodacin New Drug Application for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Gonorrhea and Assigns Target PDUFA Date of December 15, 2025. News release. Innovia Specialty Therapeutics, Inc. Published online and accessed June 12, 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250612432209/en/FDA-Grants-Priority-Review-for-Zoliflodacin-New-Drug-Application-for-the-Treatment-of-Uncomplicated-Gonorrhea-and-Assigns-Target-PDUFA-Date-of-December-15-2025 

3. Luckey A, Broadhurst H, Daram P, et al. Oral zoliflodacin is non-inferior to a combination of ceftriaxone and azithromycin for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea: results of a large global Phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Presented at: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Global Congress. April 27-30, 2024. Barcelona, Spain. https://gardp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Zoli001-Topline-ECCMID2024_final_V1.0_23Apr2024_.pdf

The FDA has accepted the NDA for zoliflodacin, a novel oral antibiotic for treating uncomplicated gonorrhea in patients aged 12 and older. Zoliflodacin, which inhibits type II topoisomerase, has been granted a Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation, allowing for priority review. Clinical trials, including a pivotal phase 3 study, demonstrated that zoliflodacin is non-inferior to the standard regimen of ceftriaxone and azithromycin. The trials showed comparable microbiological cure rates at urogenital and extragenital sites, with zoliflodacin being generally well-tolerated and no serious adverse events reported.

The NDA is supported by a pivotal phase 3 trial of zoliflodacin vs ceftriaxone plus azithromycin in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea. 

News

FDA accepts new drug application for zoliflodacin for uncomplicated gonorrhea

Dr. De La Cerda provides an overview of a patient case involving a 68 year-old male presenting with severe back pain, with an analysis of the clinical presentation, workup, and medical history.

Bone Predominant mCRPC Patient Case

Video content above is prompted by the following:

What are your initial impressions of the case?

Video Series

The FDA has accepted a Biologics License Application (BLA) seeking approval of nivolumab (Opdivo) co-formulated with Halozyme’s proprietary recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20), or subcutaneous nivolumab, for the treatment of patients with all previously approved solid tumor indications for nivolumab as a monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance following completion of combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or in combination with chemotherapy or cabozantinib (Cabometyx).

Nivolumab is currently approved under several indications, including in combination with ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), in combination with cabozantinib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC, for the treatment of patients with advanced RCC who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

The FDA is set to have a decision regarding the subcutaneous nivolumab formulation on or by December 29, 2024.

 According to a news release from Bristol Myers Squibb,

 approval of the formulation would make it the first and only subcutaneously administered PD-1 inhibitor.

“We believe subcutaneous nivolumab has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients, which is reinforced by the FDA’s acceptance of our application,” said Gina Fusaro, PhD, vice president, global program lead, Bristol Myers Squibb, in the news release.

 “Opdivo is a foundational PD-1 inhibitor approved for many different types of cancer, and our continued investment in research that puts patients first remains a priority. If approved by the FDA, the subcutaneous administration of nivolumab would provide patients and their physicians with a new option that delivers the same well-known benefits as IV Opdivo but with the improved convenience of an injection administered in 3 to 5 minutes rather than a 30-to-60-minute infusion.”

The BLA submission is supported by findings from the phase 3 CheckMate-67T trial (NCT04810078), in which subcutaneous nivolumab met the study’s co-primary end points by demonstrating noninferiority to intravenous (IV) nivolumab regarding time average nivolumab serum concentration over 28 days (C

; geometric mean ratio [GMR}, 2.098; 90% CI, 2.001-2.200) and minimum serum concentration at a steady state (C

Data from the study, which were presented at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in San Francisco, California,

 also showed that subcutaneous nivolumab demonstrated noninferiority to IV nivolumab in the key powered secondary end point of objective response rate (ORR). Specifically, the subcutaneous arm demonstrated an ORR of 24.2% (95% CI, 19.0-30.0) per blinded independent central review (BICR), compared with 18.2% (95% CI, 13.6-23.6) in the IV arm.

The safety profile for subcutaneous nivolumab was consistent with that of the IV formulation. Among patients who received the subcutaneous formulation, 8.1% experienced injection-site reactions, with all being low-grade and transient. Deaths due to study drug toxicity occurred in 3 patients in the subcutaneous arm and 1 patient in the IV arm. Most deaths that occurred during the study were due to disease progression.

In total, the phase 3, open-label CheckMate-67T trial enrolled 495 patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC who had received prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 1200 mg subcutaneous nivolumab plus rHuPH20 every 4 weeks (n = 248) or to 3 mg/kg IV nivolumab every 2 weeks (n = 247) for up to 2 years of treatment or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death.

The co-primary pharmacokinetic end points for noninferiority testing were C

 of subcutaneous nivolumab vs IV nivolumab. The key secondary end point was ORR per BICR.

Final completion of the CheckMate-67T study is expected in January 2026.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts Bristol Myers Squibb’s application for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 6, 2024. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://news.bms.com/news/corporate-financial/2024/U.S.-Food-and-Drug-Administration-Accepts-Bristol-Myers-Squibbs-Application-for-Subcutaneous-Nivolumab-nivolumab-and-hyaluronidase/default.aspx

2. Bristol Myers Squibb announces updated action date by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Published online and accessed May 21, 2024. https://investors.bms.com/iframes/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Announces-Updated-Action-Date-by-the-U.S.-Food-and-Drug-Administration-for-Subcutaneous-Nivolumab-nivolumab-and-hyaluronidase/default.aspx

3. George S, Bourlon TB, Chacon MR, et al. Subcutaneous nivolumab (NIVO SC) vs intravenous nivolumab (NIVO IV) in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety results from CheckMate 67T. 

4. A study of subcutaneous nivolumab versus intravenous nivolumab in participants with previously treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma that is advanced or has spread (CheckMate-67T). ClinicalTrials.gov. Last updated March 1, 2024. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04810078

The FDA is set to have a decision regarding the subcutaneous nivolumab formulation on or by December 29, 2024. 

FDA accepts BLA for subcutaneous nivolumab in solid tumors

The education of physicians in the US currently falls into 2 pathways: allopathic (for an MD degree) and osteopathic (for a DO degree). Over the past 10 years, the number of students graduating from osteopathic programs has increased by approximately 3000, representing a growing percentage of the physician workforce.

 Based on 2024 Association of American Medical Colleges data, osteopathic physicians comprise approximately 11.5% of the 1,010,892 actively practicing doctors.

 An even smaller percentage of these physicians pursue a career in urology, with an estimated 3.0% of the 10,747 practicing urologists having a DO degree.

Discrepancies between the 2 training pathways extend beyond residency, with differences in both practice patterns and physician demographics. Research across various specialties and with diverse cohort sizes has demonstrated that osteopathic physicians are more likely to practice in rural areas compared with their allopathic counterparts.

 For example, Gronbeck et al analyzed the practice trends of DO and MD dermatologists nationally and found that a significantly higher proportion of osteopathic dermatologists worked in low-income, nonmetropolitan areas with a relative shortage of dermatologists compared with the population.

 Given this context, our current study hypothesized that DO urologists differ significantly from their allopathic counterparts regarding their demographic background, fellowship training, and practice patterns.

To test this hypothesis, we reviewed American Urological Association (AUA) Census data from 2018 to 2022 to compare the aforementioned variables of demographics, training, and clinical practice information between osteopathic and allopathic urologists.The AUA Census is a voluntary annual survey created by the AUA Data Committee that is distributed to all AUA members, in addition to any urologists who have participated in AUA educational courses or annual meetings. The survey includes questions on respondents’ background, education, and practice settings. To address the discrepancy in sample sizes between the 2 cohorts, we analyzed the 2022 data for allopathic urologists (n=1849) alongside the information for osteopathic urologists from 2018 to 2022 (n=154), thereby maximizing the sample size and available data for the DOs. A χ2 analysis was used to evaluate for significant differences between cohort responses.

A greater proportion of osteopathic urologists were female compared with the allopathic group (26.0% vs 17.4%, respectively; 

 = .008). Additionally, osteopathic urologists were more likely to pursue general urology compared with fellowship training (65.6% vs 53%; 

 = .003). Lastly, osteopathic urologists were more likely to work in private practice (58.4% vs 49.8%; 

 = .038) and in rural/nonmetropolitan areas (16.2% vs 8.7%; 

This study examined potential differences in physician demographics, fellowship training, and practice patterns between MD and DO urologists. The DO cohort was significantly smaller than the MD cohort, even when combining 5 consecutive years of DO cohort data. DO urologists were more likely to pursue general urology rather than additional fellowship training, and they tended to practice more frequently in private settings as well as in rural and nonmetropolitan areas. Additionally, our data showed a higher proportion of female DO urologists. 

The disparity in DO and MD cohort sizes is linked to organizational changes that have affected DO applicant participation in the urology match. Before the transition to single accreditation of US graduate medical education in 2020, there were only 11 urology residency programs participating in the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) match, with 22 intern positions offered annually.

 To evaluate urology residency admissions since the merger, each publicly available residency program website was reviewed, and the reported medical degrees of residents were recorded. Based on these data, 6 out of the 11 formerly AOA programs (54.5%) have accepted MD residents. Excluding the 6 urology programs established since 2020 and former AOA programs, 41 out of 131 (31.3%) allopathic programs have accepted DO residents. Most recently, in the 2025 urology match, only 30 DO applicants successfully secured positions out of the 403 available vacancies (7.4%).

 Overall, these trends continue to support a lower entry rate of osteopathic physicians into the field of urology, the reasons for which are likely multifactorial and warrant further attention and characterization.

Given the bottleneck effect of DO students who successfully match into urology residency, it is not surprising that a similar effect can be seen regarding fellowship training. The present study shows that significantly fewer DO urologists pursue fellowships, and

 although the literature on why this exists in urology is sparse, possible causes can be extrapolated from similarly competitive surgical subspecialty studies. Orthopedic adult reconstruction fellowship match data from 2012-2023 found that DO graduates were ranked lower by programs and were significantly less likely to match than their MD counterparts.

 DO urologists may also decide not to pursue fellowship to provide comprehensive general urology care to smaller rural communities. Osteopathic medical schools place a high priority on rural health care access, with 56% of osteopathic schools intentionally located in health professional shortage areas designated by the federal government.

 This principle may continue to guide practice patterns as DO urologists more commonly practice in rural areas of the US.

Studies analyzing AUA Census data have begun to show that planned earlier retirement age and decreased productivity of practicing urologists will intensify the existing shortage.

In particular, a 2022 study examining the rural urology workforce showed that 76.1% of respondents were older than 55

 and only 31.9% planned to be in the same practice with the same clinical volume in 5 years.

 With 63% of American counties having no practicing urologists when these data were published, it is reasonable to estimate that the decreasing workforce will continue to be a concern for access to urologic care across the country, particularly in rural communities. Appreciating the unique practice niche that osteopathic urologists serve is thus critical in strategizing to address projected subspecialty workforce needs.

This study is not without limitations. Our data are based on voluntary AUA Census participation. Therefore, responses only make up a percentage of the urology workforce and may not accurately reflect the entire population. Another limitation is the considerable difference in sample sizes between the MD and DO cohorts, which necessitated the aggregation of DO data for comparison with current allopathic information. This methodology introduces potential bias and can affect the generalizability of the results.

The current study uses AUA Census data to highlight significant differences between contemporary DO and MD urologists. The results indicate DO urologists are more likely to practice as generalists and in rural/nonmetropolitan areas; additionally, there is a relatively higher proportion of female osteopathic urologists compared to their allopathic counterparts. Despite the overall underrepresentation of osteopathic urologists in the field, they play a crucial role in providing care in regions that lack subspecialty services. Further research is needed to validate these significant workforce trends among MD and DO practitioners in contemporary and comparably adjusted cohorts.

Osteopathic physicians are increasingly contributing to the US physician workforce, yet they remain underrepresented in urology. DO urologists are more likely to practice general urology, work in rural areas, and are more often female compared to their allopathic counterparts. The transition to a single accreditation system has affected DO participation in urology residencies, contributing to fewer DOs pursuing fellowship training. Despite these challenges, DO urologists play a vital role in underserved areas, highlighting the need for further research to understand and address these workforce trends.

"Osteopathic urologists were more likely to work in private practice (58.4% vs 49.8%; P = .038) and in rural/nonmetropolitan areas (16.2% vs 8.7%; P = .002)," write the authors. 

Is there a difference between MD and DO in urology?

Treatment with BCG plus mitomycin demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to BCG alone while leading to fewer treatment discontinuations and fewer BCG doses in patients with non–muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), according to data from the phase 3 ANZUP 1301 trial (NCT02948543) presented at the 

2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting

According to presenting author Professor Dickon Hayne, these findings have important implications in the context of the ongoing BCG shortage.

“BCG has been the mainline treatment for high-risk NMIBC cancer for more than half a century, usually given with 6-week induction and then maintenance to at least a year. According to guidelines, the ideal regimen and indeed, strain, of BCG is unknown,” Hayne explained during the presentation. “There's also a global BCG shortage, and BCG supply, by best estimates, falls 30% to 50% short of demand. Some evidence already exists of a benefit of adding mitomycin to BCG.”

In total, the ANZUP 1301 trial enrolled 501 patients who were randomly assigned to receive intravesical BCG plus mitomycin (n = 249) or intravesical BCG alone (n = 252). Female patients comprised 22% and 16% of each study arm, respectively. Treatment was not blinded due to the different dosing schedules in each arm.

The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included complete response rate, time to recurrence, time to progression, overall survival, and safety. The trial also assessed quality of life outcomes, which Hayne noted will be presented at a later date.

At the current analysis, data showed a 24-month DFS of 75% (95% CI, 70 to 81) in the mitomycin plus BCG arm vs 71% (95% CI, 65 to 77) in the BCG alone arm (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.16; 

 = .34). Further, 90% (95% CI, 85 to 93) of patients who received mitomycin plus BCG vs 86% (95% CI, 81 to 90) of patients who received BCG alone achieved a complete response on cystoscopy at the 3-month timepoint (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.12; 

Data also showed that 80% (95% CI, 75 to 85) of patients in the mitomycin plus BCG arm vs 75% (95% CI, 70 to 81) in the BCG alone arm remained recurrence-free at 24 months (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.19; 

 = .35). Further, 92% (95% CI, 89 to 96) of patients in the combination arm remained free from progression at 24 months compared with 90% of patients in the monotherapy arm (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.11; 

At 5 years, overall survival was 88% in the combination arm compared with 87% in the monotherapy arm (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.86; 

 = .85). Death due to bladder cancer occurred in 7 patients in the mitomycin plus BCG arm and 5 patients in the BCG alone arm.

Hayne added, “As stated already, the primary outcome measure for the study was disease-free survival, stratified by T stage and the presence or absence of CIS. However, when the study was conceived, high-grade Ta disease was considered high-risk NMIBC in its own right. However, more recent EAU risk stratifications would put a lot of these patients into an intermediate risk group. So, we decided to perform an exploratory post-hoc subgroup analysis, analyzing the patients by the pre-specified stratification criteria, as in T1 or the presence or absence of CIS, but also to look at the risk group of higher-risk, as in any T1 disease or those with CIS, vs the lower-risk group, high-grade Ta with no CIS.”

In this analysis looking at DFS, the HR was 0.69 in the high-risk group and 1.28 in the low-risk group (

“You can see that the addition of mitomycin to the subgroup at higher risk deserves further investigation,” Hayne noted.

Regarding safety, the proportion of adverse events (AEs) between both arms was similar. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was low across both cohorts.

In total, there were 3 deaths on treatment: 1 due to myocardial infarction (BCG only), 1 due to sepsis (BCG only), and 1 due to BCG-related mycotic aortic aneurysm (mitomycin plus BCG). There was another instance of mycotic aortic aneurysm in the BCG only cohort, as well as 1 report of myasthenia gravis in the combination arm.

Data also showed that although the total number of treatment instillations was greater in the combination arm (4033 vs 3383), there was a 40% reduction in the number of BCG doses required with the mitomycin plus BCG regimen (2056 vs 3383). The median number of BCG doses per patient was 9 in the combination arm and 16 in the monotherapy arm.

Overall, 78% of patients in the mitomycin plus BCG arm complete more than 75% of planned treatment doses vs 68% of patients in the BCG alone arm. Additionally, 75% of patients in the combination arm completed all doses (100%) of planned treatment compared with 64% of patients in the monotherapy arm.

Based on these data, Hayne concluded, “[In] ANZUP 1301, which is one of the largest non–muscle invasive bladder cancer studies to be reported in recent times, BCG plus mitomycin shows similar efficacy and safety to BCG alone with fewer treatment discontinuations, 40% fewer BCG doses required, and we've seen that high-risk patients may do better with the addition of the mitomycin. BCG plus mitomycin is a good alternative to BCG alone. Wide adoption of this regimen could go some way to alleviate the global BCG shortage.”

1. Hayne D, Zhang A, Thomas H, et al. Mitomycin plus BCG as adjuvant intravesical therapy for high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A randomized phase 3 trial (ANZUP 1301). 

. 2025;43 (suppl 17; abstr LBA4504). doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA4504

The phase 3 ANZUP 1301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of BCG plus mitomycin compared to BCG alone in patients with non–muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Results showed comparable efficacy and safety between the two regimens, with the combination therapy leading to fewer treatment discontinuations and a 40% reduction in BCG doses. The study highlighted the potential of BCG plus mitomycin as an alternative treatment, especially in the context of a global BCG shortage. High-risk patients may benefit more from the addition of mitomycin.

According to the authors, the mitomycin/BCG regimen could alleviate some of the burden of the global BCG shortage.  

Data supports mitomycin plus BCG as alternative to BCG alone in NMIBC

First-line nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) continued to show improved survival and durable response benefits vs sunitinib (Sutent) in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), according to final results from the phase 3 CheckMate-214 trial (NCT02231749) presented at the 

2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting

In total, the CheckMate-214 trial enrolled 1096 patients with aRCC who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib. Initial data from the trial, which led to FDA approval of the combination in April 2018, showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) vs sunitinib in this population.

Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, presented data on the final analysis of the trial, which is the longest follow-up (median follow-up, 9.3 years) of a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination in aRCC.

The CheckMate-214 trial demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved survival and response rates compared to sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 9.3 years, the combination showed sustained benefits in overall survival, progression-free survival, and duration of response, particularly in intermediate and poor-risk patients. The trial confirmed nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care, with durable responses and manageable adverse events. Subcutaneous nivolumab may offer an alternative to intravenous dosing for maintenance therapy in advanced RCC.

"This final analysis of this study continues to support nivo+ipi as a standard of care for patients with untreated RCC," says Robert J. Motzer, MD. 

Laura Hegwer

Articles

Latest Updated Articles