Twitxy Saved

Max Kates

@MaxKates

Associate Professor of Urology and Oncology
Director, Division of Urologic Oncology @bradyurology
425 Following 2.1K Followers 1.8K Posts

Latest posts 5

Max Kates @MaxKates
For medoncs trying to understand why urologists remain unexcited...issue is the endpoint. Recurrence does not equate progression. Progression does not equate CSS or OS. So we want to at least understand if large/sometime permanent grade 3+ toxicity is worth it. #ESMO26
Vignesh Packiam, MD Verified account @VigneshPackiam Oct 24
Still not worth it IMO

Difference in recurrence is low and those can be salvaged with regimens providing much less toxicity
View quoted post on X
1 replies 3 reposts 23 likes 2.5K views View on X
Max Kates @MaxKates
Neoadjuvant MIBC Trials: KEYNOTE-866 (pembro) and ENERGIZE (nivo)negative. NIAGARA (durva) stands alone. Adjuvant is split too. ICI benefit in MIBC is real but marginal, and likely lives in a subset we have yet to identify. Utilit of chemo+IO less clear in EVP era. #ESMO26
0 replies 2 reposts 15 likes 1.1K views View on X
Max Kates @MaxKates
A great read for any of you interested in bladder cancer, nmibc, the nuances of clinical trials and why they matter
Eugene Pietzak @eugene_pietzak Oct 21
It has been nearly 5 months since the FDA approved durvalumab + BCG for “BCG-naïve” high-risk #NMIBC based on the POTOMAC trial.

There has been considerable discussion about the discordant results of the recent phase III trials evaluating BCG + immune checkpoint blockade.
But I think we're overlooking a potentially important difference between these trials, one that could have major implications for how we interpret the results and counsel our patients.

POTOMAC and CREST were positive trials, but unlike the negative ALBAN trial, both permitted enrollment of patients previously treated with BCG.

To my knowledge, neither has reported how many patients had prior BCG exposure or whether the benefit of adding checkpoint blockade differs between previously treated and truly BCG-naïve patients.
Given the additional toxicity, treatment burden, and cost of systemic checkpoint blockade, how can we adequately counsel patients receiving BCG for the first time without knowing the magnitude of benefit specifically in patients like them?

I think we need to see these subgroup data from @AstraZeneca and @pfizer .

1/n
@BladderCancerUS ; @BCAN_Research ; @SUO_YUO ; @UroOnc ; @FDA ; @chana_weinstock ; @AmerUrological
View quoted post on X
0 replies 5 reposts 31 likes 1.3K views View on X
Max Kates @MaxKates
More evidence showing skin toxicity with EVP is associated with disease response.
@HopkinsGBCI
. Here is one of the first papers showing this in 2023 from our group at Hopkins /GBCI: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
JAMA Network Open @JAMANetworkOpen Oct 20
In advanced #UrothelialCarcinoma, treatment-emergent skin toxic effects during first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab were associated with longer overall survival. ja.ma/4k88Qvf
View quoted post on X
0 replies 5 reposts 17 likes 1.3K views View on X
Max Kates @MaxKates
FDA Approves Anktiva for BCG Unresponsive Papillary Disease. This will be an interesting next few months as other companies seek similar pathway to approval. CIS/papillary buckets a thing of the past? Will certainly make for some good debates...

fda.gov/news-events/pr…
www.fda.gov FDA Approves First Treatment for Certain People With BCG-Unresponsive Bladder Cancer  FDA Approves First Treatment for Certain People With BCG-Unresponsive Bladder Cancer