Dr. Andrea Apolo

I think they need more systemic therapy probably than other patients, but how to intensify that systemic therapy, I think we need to learn that. We don't know yet.

I think they need more systemic therapy probably than other patients, but how to intensify that systemic therapy, I think we need to learn that. We don't know yet.

Yeah, sure. So the Ambassador Study, I was really excited to present the 45-month follow-up for the Ambassador Study. We had presented the 22-month follow-up at GU-ASCO, and we had a lot more data now. We're really fortunate to do a concurrent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine with the outcomes of the Ambassador Study.

Yeah, sure. So the Ambassador Study, I was really excited to present the 45-month follow-up for the Ambassador Study. We had presented the 22-month follow-up at GU-ASCO, and we had a lot more data now. We're really fortunate to do a concurrent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine with the outcomes of the Ambassador Study.

Yeah, sure. So the Ambassador Study, I was really excited to present the 45-month follow-up for the Ambassador Study. We had presented the 22-month follow-up at GU-ASCO, and we had a lot more data now. We're really fortunate to do a concurrent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine with the outcomes of the Ambassador Study.

So just to kind of summarize what it is, this is a phase three study randomized for patients with muscle invasive urethelial carcinoma who undergo radical surgery and they have high risk disease. And by high risk disease, This means they received neoadjuvant cisplatinibase chemotherapy and have a persistent T2 muscle invasive disease or greater.

So just to kind of summarize what it is, this is a phase three study randomized for patients with muscle invasive urethelial carcinoma who undergo radical surgery and they have high risk disease. And by high risk disease, This means they received neoadjuvant cisplatinibase chemotherapy and have a persistent T2 muscle invasive disease or greater.

So just to kind of summarize what it is, this is a phase three study randomized for patients with muscle invasive urethelial carcinoma who undergo radical surgery and they have high risk disease. And by high risk disease, This means they received neoadjuvant cisplatinibase chemotherapy and have a persistent T2 muscle invasive disease or greater.

And this includes positive margins and positive lymph nodes, which, you know, it's kind of special that we included positive margins. Or they did not receive cisplatinibase neoadjuvant therapy but have a T3 or greater muscle invasive disease or positive lymph nodes or positive margins.

And this includes positive margins and positive lymph nodes, which, you know, it's kind of special that we included positive margins. Or they did not receive cisplatinibase neoadjuvant therapy but have a T3 or greater muscle invasive disease or positive lymph nodes or positive margins.

And this includes positive margins and positive lymph nodes, which, you know, it's kind of special that we included positive margins. Or they did not receive cisplatinibase neoadjuvant therapy but have a T3 or greater muscle invasive disease or positive lymph nodes or positive margins.

So those patients were randomized and this trial was designed a while ago where there was really no treatment for these patients in the adjuvant setting, especially if they couldn't receive cisplatin and base chemotherapy, either neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. The patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab for one year versus observation.

So those patients were randomized and this trial was designed a while ago where there was really no treatment for these patients in the adjuvant setting, especially if they couldn't receive cisplatin and base chemotherapy, either neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. The patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab for one year versus observation.

So those patients were randomized and this trial was designed a while ago where there was really no treatment for these patients in the adjuvant setting, especially if they couldn't receive cisplatin and base chemotherapy, either neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. The patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab for one year versus observation.

with the dual primary endpoint of disease-free survival and overall survival. So we reported the outcomes of the disease-free survival and we found a doubling of the disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab. So it went from 14.2 months with observation to 29.6 months in the patients receiving pembrolizumab. So this was really exciting.

with the dual primary endpoint of disease-free survival and overall survival. So we reported the outcomes of the disease-free survival and we found a doubling of the disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab. So it went from 14.2 months with observation to 29.6 months in the patients receiving pembrolizumab. So this was really exciting.

with the dual primary endpoint of disease-free survival and overall survival. So we reported the outcomes of the disease-free survival and we found a doubling of the disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab. So it went from 14.2 months with observation to 29.6 months in the patients receiving pembrolizumab. So this was really exciting.

And the results just show that adjuvant pembrolizumab is effective in this setting and should be considered an option for patients that have high-risk muscle invasive disease.

And the results just show that adjuvant pembrolizumab is effective in this setting and should be considered an option for patients that have high-risk muscle invasive disease.

And the results just show that adjuvant pembrolizumab is effective in this setting and should be considered an option for patients that have high-risk muscle invasive disease.