Androgen Deprivation Therapy Drives a Distinct Immune Phenotype in Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the backbone of prostate cancer treatment. Beyond suppression of testosterone and tumor cell growth, emerging evidence suggests ADT also modulates the immune tumor microenvironment (TME). However, a more precise understanding of the timing and intricacies of these immunological shifts is needed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Here we analyzed 49 primary prostate cancers, comparing those surgically removed either without treatment or following treatment with degarelix at 4, 7, and 14 days pre-surgery. Utilizing next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing, and multiplexed immunofluorescence, we examined alterations in immune phenotypes in the presence or absence of ADT. RESULTS: Our findings reveal that ADT rapidly transforms the typically bland prostate TME into an inflamed environment within days. Notably, we observed an increase in activated CD8 T-cells along with an increase in suppressive regulatory T-cells (Tregs). We also found an expansion of the myeloid compartment, particularly pro-inflammatory M1-like tumor-associated macrophages. Intriguingly, discernable changes which have not previously been described also occurred in tumor cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation by MHC class I and II and, unexpectedly, a decrease in the "don't eat me" signal CD47. CONCLUSIONS: These observations underscore the critical role of timing and disease context in order to optimize the therapeutic efficacy of immune modulators combined with androgen ablation, for which the presurgical neoadjuvant setting may be ideal. Our findings warrant future prospective validation, which is currently underway.

Clinical, Imaging, and Technical Factors Associated with Successful Genomic Profiling of Bone Biopsy Tissue in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The source of tissue for genomic profiling of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is often limited to osseous metastases. To guide patient management, metastatic site selection and the technique for targeted bone biopsies are critical for identifying deleterious gene mutations. Our objective was to identify key parameters associated with successful large-panel DNA sequencing. METHODS: We analyzed parameters for 243 men with progressing mCRPC who underwent 269 bone biopsies for genomic profiling between 2014 and 2018. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for clinical, imaging (bone scan; fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]; computed tomography [CT]; magnetic resonance imaging), and technical (biopsy site, number of samples, needle gauge) features associated with successful genomic profiling. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 159 of 269 biopsies (59%) generated sufficient tumor material for a genomic profile. Seventy (26%) of the failures were histopathologically negative for mCRPC and 40 (15%) had insufficient tumor for genomic profiling. Of 199 mCRPC samples submitted for molecular testing, 159 (80%) yielded a genomic profile. On univariate analysis, PSA, serum acid phosphatase, number of biopsy samples, FDG PET positivity, CT attenuation, and CT morphology were significantly associated with genomic profiling success. On multivariate analysis, higher FDG maximum standardized uptake value (odds ratio [OR] 7.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01-18.78; p < 0.001), higher number of biopsy samples (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.49-15.02; p = 0.008), and lower mean CT attenuation (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-0.89; p = 0.025) were significantly associated with sequencing success. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In patients with mCRPC, bone biopsies from sites with metabolic activity and lower CT attenuation are associated with higher success rates for genomic profiling via a large-panel DNA sequencing platform. PATIENT SUMMARY: We identified factors associated with successful genetic testing of bone tissue for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Our findings may help in guiding the right scan technique and biopsy site for personalized treatment planning.

Microsatellite Instability, Tumor Mutational Burden, and Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) and high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) prostate cancers are candidates for pembrolizumab. We define the genomic features, clinical course, and response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H prostate cancers without MSI [TMB-H/microsatellite stable (MSS)]. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We sequenced 3,244 tumors from 2,257 patients with prostate cancer. MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer was defined as an MSIsensor score ≥10 or MSIsensor score ≥3 and <10 with a deleterious MMR alteration. TMB-H was defined as ≥10 mutations/megabase. PSA50 and RECIST responses were assigned. Overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: Sixty-three (2.8%) men had MSI-H/dMMR, and 33 (1.5%) had TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers. Patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H/MSS tumors more commonly presented with grade group 5 and metastatic disease at diagnosis. MSI-H/dMMR tumors had higher TMB, indel, and neoantigen burden compared with TMB-H/MSS. Twenty-seven patients with MSI-H/dMMR and 8 patients with TMB-H/MSS tumors received ICB, none of whom harbored polymerase epsilon (polE) catalytic subunit mutations. About 45% of patients with MSI-H/dMMR had a RECIST response, and 65% had a PSA50 response. No patient with TMB-H/MSS had a RECIST response, and 50% had a PSA50 response. rPFS tended to be longer in patients with MSI-H/dMMR than in patients with TMB-H/MSS who received immunotherapy. Pronounced differences in genomics, TMB, or MSIsensor score were not detected between MSI-H/dMMR responders and nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancers have greater TMB, indel, and neoantigen burden than TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers, and these differences may contribute to profound and durable responses to ICB.

Marital Status, Living Arrangement, and Survival among Individuals with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). METHODS: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other). RESULTS: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94). CONCLUSIONS: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants. IMPACT: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population.

Pain and Its Association with Survival for Black and White Individuals with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Bone pain is a well-known quality-of-life detriment for individuals with prostate cancer and is associated with survival. This study expands previous work into racial differences in multiple patient-reported dimensions of pain and the association between baseline and longitudinal pain and mortality. This is a prospective cohort study of individuals with newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer enrolled in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) from 2017 to 2023 at U.S. sites. Differences in four pain scores at study enrollment by race were investigated. Cox proportional hazards models and joint longitudinal survival models were fit for each of the scale scores to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association with all-cause mortality. The cohort included 879 individuals (20% self-identifying as Black) enrolled at 38 U.S. sites. Black participants had worse pain at baseline compared with White participants, most notably a higher average pain rating (mean 3.1 vs. 2.2 on a 10-point scale). For each pain scale, higher pain was associated with higher mortality after adjusting for measures of disease burden, particularly for severe bone pain compared with no pain (HR, 2.47; 95% CI: 1.44-4.22). The association between pain and all-cause mortality was stronger for participants with castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and was similar among Black and White participants. Overall, Black participants reported worse pain than White participants, and more severe pain was associated with higher mortality independent of clinical covariates for all pain scales. SIGNIFICANCE: Black participants with advanced prostate cancer reported worse pain than White participants, and more pain was associated with worse survival. More holistic clinical assessments of pain in this population are needed to determine the factors upon which to intervene to improve quality of life and survivorship, particularly for Black individuals.

Evaluating Immune-Related Adverse Events Using PRO-CTCAE in a Phase II Study of Ipilimumab for Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Introduction: Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) during chemotherapy is associated with decreased hospitalization rates, improved quality of life, and longer survival. Limited data exist on the benefit of this symptom assessment tool for monitoring immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Methods: We incorporated irAE-related items from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE in a trial evaluating ipilimumab in combination with androgen deprivation therapy in 16 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For comparison, NCI's CTCAE version 4.0 was used by clinicians. Results: IrAE-related PRO-CTCAE surveys and matched CTCAEs (184 pairs) reporting abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, rash, and pruritus were collected at each treatment administration and during follow-up. Fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and pruritus were the symptoms most frequently reported by both patients and clinicians. Agreement was lowest for pruritus (κ = 0.10) and highest for rash (κ = 0.64). IrAEs were more commonly reported and of higher grade with PRO-CTCAE scores compared with CTCAE grades. Conclusion: PRO-CTCAEs focused on irAEs capture the patient's immunotherapy experience while complementing the clinician's toxicity assessment measures. Further study is needed to assess PRO-CTCAE's utility in identifying and managing irAEs.

Clinical Impact of a Rapid Genetic Testing Model for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed. RESULTS: Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

First-in-human, phase 1 study of PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (VBIR), in non-metastatic hormone-sensitive biochemical recurrence and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study evaluated PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (PrCa VBIR), in two clinical states of prostate cancer (PC), metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: For dose escalation, patients with mCRPC received intramuscular PrCa VBIR (adenovirus vector and plasmid DNA expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)) with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, tremelimumab 40 or 80 mg with or without sasanlimab 130 or 300 mg, both subcutaneous). For dose expansion, patients with mCRPC received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg and sasanlimab 300 mg; patients with BCR received PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg (Cohort 1B-BCR) or tremelimumab 80 mg plus sasanlimab 130 mg (Cohort 5B-BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated in dose escalation (mCRPC=38) and expansion (BCR=35, mCRPC=18). Overall, treatment-related and immune-related adverse events occurred in 64 (70.3%) and 39 (42.9%) patients, with fatigue (40.7%), influenza-like illness (30.8%), diarrhea (23.1%), and immune-related thyroid dysfunction (19.8%) and rash (15.4%), as the most common. In patients with mCRPC, the objective response rate (ORR, 95% CI) was 5.6% (1.2% to 15.4%) and the median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 5.6 (3.5 to not estimable) months for all; the ORR was 16.7% (3.6% to 41.4%) and 6-month rPFS rate was 45.5% (24.9% to 64.1%) for those who received RP2D with measurable disease (n=18). 7.4% of patients with mCRPC achieved a ≥50% decline in baseline PSA (PSA-50), with a median duration of 4.6 (1.2-45.2) months. In patients with BCR, 9 (25.7%) achieved PSA-50; the median duration of PSA response was 3.9 (1.9-4.2) and 10.1 (6.9-28.8) months for Cohorts 5B-BCR and 1B-BCR. Overall, antigen specific T-cell response was 88.0% to PSMA, 84.0% to PSA, and 80.0% to PSCA. CONCLUSIONS: PrCa VBIR overall demonstrated safety signals similar to other ICI combination trials; significant side effects were seen in some patients with BCR. It stimulated antigen-specific immunity across all cohorts and resulted in modest antitumor activity in patients with BCR without using ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616185.

First-in-human phase I study of the OX40 agonist GSK3174998 with or without pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced solid tumors (ENGAGE-1).

BACKGROUND: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. RESULTS: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02528357.

Gene-based Confirmatory Germline Testing Following Tumor-only Sequencing of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-only genomic profiling is an important tool in therapeutic management of men with prostate cancer. Since clinically actionable germline variants may be reflected in tumor profiling, it is critical to identify which variants have a higher risk of being germline in origin to better counsel patients and prioritize genetic testing. OBJECTIVE: To determine when variants found on tumor-only sequencing of prostate cancers should prompt confirmatory germline testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with prostate cancer who underwent both tumor and germline sequencing at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2020 were evaluated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Tumor and germline profiles were analyzed for pathogenic and likely pathogenic ("pathogenic") variants in 60 moderate- or high-penetrance genes associated with cancer predisposition. The germline probability (germline/germline + somatic) of a variant was calculated for each gene. Clinical and pathologic factors were analyzed as potential modifiers of germline probability. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1883 patients identified, 1084 (58%) had a somatic or germline pathogenic variant in one of 60 cancer susceptibility genes, and of them, 240 (22%) had at least one germline variant. Overall, the most frequent variants were in TP53, PTEN, APC, BRCA2, RB1, ATM, and CHEK2. Variants in TP53, PTEN, or RB1 were identified in 746 (40%) patients and were exclusively somatic. Variants with the highest germline probabilities were in PALB2 (69%), MITF (62%), HOXB13 (60%), CHEK2 (55%), BRCA1 (55%), and BRCA2 (47%), and the overall germline probability of a variant in any DNA damage repair gene was 40%. Limitations were that most of the men included in the cohort had metastatic disease, and different thresholds for pathogenicity exist for somatic and germline variants. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients with pathogenic variants found on prostate tumor sequencing, 22% had clinically actionable germline variants, for which the germline probabilities varied widely by gene. Our results provide an evidenced-based clinical framework to prioritize referral to genetic counseling following tumor-only sequencing. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with advanced prostate cancer are recommended to have germline genetic testing. Genetic sequencing of a patient's prostate tumor may also identify certain gene variants that are inherited. We found that patients who had variants in certain genes, such as ones that function in DNA damage repair, identified in their prostate tumor sequencing, had a high risk for having an inherited cancer syndrome.

Clinical annotations for prostate cancer research: Defining data elements, creating a reproducible analytical pipeline, and assessing data quality.

BACKGROUND: Routine clinical data from clinical charts are indispensable for retrospective and prospective observational studies and clinical trials. Their reproducibility is often not assessed. We developed a prostate cancer-specific database for clinical annotations and evaluated data reproducibility. METHODS: For men with prostate cancer who had clinical-grade paired tumor-normal sequencing at a comprehensive cancer center, we performed team-based retrospective data collection from the electronic medical record using a defined source hierarchy. We developed an open-source R package for data processing. With blinded repeat annotation by a reference medical oncologist, we assessed data completeness, reproducibility of team-based annotations, and impact of measurement error on bias in survival analyses. RESULTS: Data elements on demographics, diagnosis and staging, disease state at the time of procuring a genomically characterized sample, and clinical outcomes were piloted and then abstracted for 2261 patients (with 2631 samples). Completeness of data elements was generally high. Comparing to the repeat annotation by a medical oncologist blinded to the database (100 patients/samples), reproducibility of annotations was high; T stage, metastasis date, and presence and date of castration resistance had lower reproducibility. Impact of measurement error on estimates for strong prognostic factors was modest. CONCLUSIONS: With a prostate cancer-specific data dictionary and quality control measures, manual clinical annotations by a multidisciplinary team can be scalable and reproducible. The data dictionary and the R package for reproducible data processing are freely available to increase data quality and efficiency in clinical prostate cancer research.

Differences in Prostate Cancer Genomes by Self-reported Race: Contributions of Genetic Ancestry, Modifiable Cancer Risk Factors, and Clinical Factors.

PURPOSE: Black men die from prostate cancer twice as often as White men, a disparity likely due to inherited genetics, modifiable cancer risk factors, and healthcare access. It is incompletely understood how and why tumor genomes differ by self-reported race and genetic ancestry. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Among 2,069 men with prostate cancer (1,841 self-reported White, 63 Asian, 165 Black) with access to clinical-grade sequencing at the same cancer center, prevalence of tumor and germline alterations was assessed in cancer driver genes reported to have different alteration prevalence by race. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics such as prostate-specific antigen and age at diagnosis as well as cancer stage at sample procurement differed by self-reported race. However, most genomic differences persisted when adjusting for clinical characteristics. Tumors from Black men harbored fewer PTEN mutations and more AR alterations than those from White men. Tumors from Asian men had more FOXA1 mutations and more ZFHX3 alterations than White men. Despite fewer TP53 mutations, tumors from Black men had more aneuploidy, particularly chromosome arm 8q gains, an adverse prognostic factor. Genetic ancestry was associated with similar tumor alterations as self-reported race, but also with modifiable cancer risk factors. Community-level average income was associated with chr8q gains after adjusting for race and ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor genomics differed by race even after accounting for clinical characteristics. Equalizing access to care may not fully eliminate such differences. Therapies for alterations more common in racial minorities are needed. Tumor genomic differences should not be assumed to be entirely due to germline genetics.

Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone, Degarelix, or the Combination in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Phase 2 trial endpoints that can be utilized in high-risk biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostatectomy as a way of more rapidly identifying treatments for phase 3 trials are urgently needed. The efficacy of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in BCR is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of complete biochemical responses after testosterone recovery after 8 mo of AAP and degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, alone or in combination. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with BCR (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥1.0 ng/ml, PSA doubling time ≤9 mo, no metastases on standard imaging, and testosterone ≥150 ng/dl) after prostatectomy (with or without prior radiotherapy) were included in this study. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to AAP (arm 1), AAP with degarelix (arm 2), or degarelix (arm 3) for 8 mo, and monitored for 18 mo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was undetectable PSA with testosterone >150 ng/dl at 18 mo. Secondary endpoints were undetectable PSA at 8 mo and time to testosterone recovery. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For the 122 patients enrolled, no difference was found between treatments for the primary endpoint (arm 1: 5.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1-17%], arm 2: 17.1% [95% CI: 7-32%], arm 3: 11.9% [95% CI: 4-26%]; arm 1 vs 2, p = 0.93; arm 2 vs 3, p = 0.36). AAP therapy showed the shortest median time to testosterone recovery (36.0 wk [95% CI: 35.9-36.1]) relative to degarelix (52.9 wk [95% CI: 49.0-56.0], p < 0.001). Rates of undetectable PSA at 8 mo differed between AAP with degarelix and degarelix alone (p = 0.04), but not between AAP alone and degarelix alone (p = 0.12). Limitations of this study include a lack of long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of undetectable PSA levels with testosterone recovery were similar between arms, suggesting that increased androgen suppression with AAP and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unlikely to eradicate recurrent disease compared with ADT alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), AAP alone, or ADT alone in men with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. While more men who received the combination had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 8 mo on treatment, once men came off treatment and testosterone level rose, there was no difference in the rates of undetectable PSA levels. This suggests that the combination is not able to eradicate disease any better than ADT alone.

CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody PD-L1 inhibitor, in combination with ipilimumab in patients with advanced solid tumors (PROCLAIM-CX-072): a first-in-human, dose-finding study.

BACKGROUND: Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs designed to be activated by tumor-associated proteases. This conditional activation restricts antibody binding to the tumor microenvironment, thereby minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. Here, we report the phase 1 data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), in combination with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab. METHODS: Adults (n=27) with advanced solid tumors (naive to PD-L1/programmed cell death protein 1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors) were enrolled in the phase 1 combination therapy dose-escalation portion of this multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study (NCT03013491). Dose-escalation pacmilimab/ipilimumab followed a standard 3+3 design and continued until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Pacmilimab+ipilimumab was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pacmilimab administered every 2 weeks as monotherapy. The primary objective was identification of dose-limiting toxicities and determination of the MTD. Other endpoints included the rate of objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in pacmilimab (mg/kg)+ipilimumab (mg/kg) dose-escalation cohorts: 0.3+3 (n=6); 1+3 (n=3); 3+3 (n=3); 10+3 (n=8); 10+6 (n=6); and 10+10 (n=1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in three patients, one at the 0.3+3 dose level (grade 3 dyspnea/pneumonitis) and two at the 10+6 dose level (grade 3 colitis, grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase). The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose was pacmilimab 10 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks. Pacmilimab-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 immune-related AEs were reported in nine (33%) and six (22%) patients, respectively. Three patients (11%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. The overall response rate was 19% (95% CI 6.3 to 38.1), with one complete (anal squamous cell carcinoma) and four partial responses (cancer of unknown primary, leiomyosarcoma, mesothelioma, testicular cancer). Responses lasted for >12 months in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose of pacmilimab (10 mg/kg)+ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks is active and has a favorable tolerability profile.

CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody ® PD-L1 inhibitor, in advanced or recurrent solid tumors (PROCLAIM-CX-072): an open-label dose-finding and first-in-human study.

BACKGROUND: Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs that are activated in the tumor microenvironment by tumor-associated proteases, thereby restricting the activity to the tumor microenvironment and minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. We report dose-escalation and single-agent expansion phase data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). METHODS: In the dose-escalation phase of this multicenter, open-label study (NCT03013491), adults with advanced solid tumors (naive to programmed-death-1/PD-L1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors) were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation cohorts, with pacmilimab administered intravenously every 14 days. The primary endpoints were safety and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In the expansion phase, patients with one of six prespecified malignancies (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]; anal squamous cell carcinoma [aSCC]; cutaneous SCC [cSCC]; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [UPS]; small bowel adenocarcinoma [SBA]; and thymic epithelial tumor [TET]); or high tumor mutational burden (hTMB) tumors were enrolled. The primary endpoint was objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1). RESULTS: An MTD was not reached with doses up to 30 mg/kg. A recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 10 mg/kg was chosen based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings in the expansion phase. Ninety-eight patients enrolled in the expansion phase: TNBC (n=14), aSCC (n=14), cSCC (n=14), UPS (n=20), SBA (n=14), TET (n=8), and hTMB tumors (n=14). Of 114 patients receiving pacmilimab at the RP2D, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 10 patients (9%), serious TRAEs in six patients (5%), and treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs in two patients (2%). Grade ≥3 immune-related AEs occurred in two patients (rash, myocarditis). High PD-L1 expression (ie, >50% Tumor Proportion Score) was observed in 22/144 (19%) patients. Confirmed objective responses were observed in patients with cSCC (n=5, including one complete response), hTMB (n=4, including one complete response), aSCC (n=2), TNBC (n=1), UPS (n=1), and anaplastic thyroid cancer (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: Pacmilimab can be administered safely at the RP2D of 10 mg/kg every 14 days. At this dose, pacmilimab had a low rate of immune-mediated toxicity and showed signs of antitumor activity in patients not selected for high PD-L1 expression. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03013491.

Immunologic and tumor responses of pegilodecakin with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background Treatment options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and checkpoint blockade inhibitors have been disappointing in this disease. Pegilodecakin has demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in immune-sensitive tumors. Phase 1 and preclinical data indicate synergy of pegilodecakin with 5-FU and platins. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX in patients with PDAC. Methods IVY (NCT02009449) was an open-label phase 1b trial in the United States. Here we report on all enrolled patients from cohort C. Heavily pretreated patients were treated with pegilodecakin (self-administered subcutaneously daily at 2.5, 5, or 10 µg/kg) + 5-flurouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), dosed per manufacturers prescribing information, until tumor progression. Eligible patients had measurable disease per immune-related response criteria (irRC), were ≥ 18 years of age, and had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were evaluated for primary(safety) and secondary (tumor response per irRC) endpoints. Results From 5 August 2014-12 July 2016, 39 patients enrolled in cohort C. All patients were evaluable for safety. In this advanced population, regimen had manageable toxicities with no immune-related adverse events (irAEs) greater than grade 1. The most common grade 3/4/5 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (21[53.8%] of 39) and anemia (17[43.6%] of 39). In evaluable PDAC patients, the best overall response of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX was 3(14%) with CRs in 2(9%) patients. Conclusions Pegilodecakin+FOLFOX had an acceptable tolerability profile in PDAC, with no substantial irAEs seen, and promising efficacy with the combination yielding a 2-year OS of 24% (95% CI 10-42). These data led to the phase 3 study with pegilodecakin+FOLFOX as second-line therapy of PDAC (SEQUOIA).

Immunomodulatory Activity of a Colony-stimulating Factor-1 Receptor Inhibitor in Patients with Advanced Refractory Breast or Prostate Cancer: A Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: Tumor-associated macrophages correlate with increased invasiveness, growth, and immunosuppression. Activation of the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) results in proliferation, differentiation, and migration of monocytes/macrophages. This phase I study evaluated the immunologic and clinical activity, and safety profile of CSF-1R inhibition with the mAb LY3022855. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were treated with LY3022855 intravenously in 6-week cycles in cohorts: (A) 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); (B) 1.0 mg/kg on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5; (C) 100 mg once weekly; (D)100 mg Q2W. mCRPC patients were enrolled in cohorts A and B; patients with MBC were enrolled in all cohorts. Efficacy was assessed by RECIST and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (22 MBC; 12 mCRPC) received ≥1 dose of LY3022855. At day 8, circulating CSF-1 levels increased and proinflammatory monocytes CD14DIMCD16BRIGHT decreased. Best RECIST response was stable disease in five patients with MBC (23%; duration, 82-302 days) and three patients with mCRPC (25%; duration, 50-124 days). Two patients with MBC (cohort A) had durable stable disease >9 months and a third patient with MBC had palpable reduction in a nontarget neck mass. Immune-related gene activation in tumor biopsies posttreatment was observed. Common any grade treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, asymptomatic increased lipase, and creatine phosphokinase. CONCLUSIONS: LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed evidence of immune modulation. Clinically meaningful stable disease >9 months was observed in two patients with MBC.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Prostate Cancer: Niche Role or Next Breakthrough?

A number of trials have evaluated the use of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The benefit appears to be limited to a small subset of patients, such as those with tumors with microsatellite instability, highlighting the importance of biomarkers to identify which patients may be more likely to respond. Given the lack of efficacy for most patients with mCRPC, our understanding of the mechanisms of primary resistance to checkpoint inhibitors and of the tumor immune microenvironment in prostate cancer is critical. Knowledge gained in these key areas will allow for the identification of novel combination therapies that will circumvent resistance mechanisms and should be tested in clinical trials. Improving our understanding of the effects of androgen deprivation therapy on immune cells and of the most favorable disease setting (e.g., biochemically recurrent vs. castration-resistant prostate cancer) may aid in the optimal use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with other agents. If successful, this may move immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment armamentarium of prostate cancer management.

Probody Therapeutics: An Emerging Class of Therapies Designed to Enhance On-Target Effects with Reduced Off-Tumor Toxicity for Use in Immuno-Oncology.

The deep and durable antitumor effects of antibody-based immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized oncology and transformed the therapeutic landscape for many cancers. Several anti-programmed death receptor 1 and anti-programmed death receptor ligand 1 antibodies have been approved for use in advanced solid tumors, including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, and other cancers. ICIs are under development across many tumor types and preliminary results are compelling. However, ICIs have been associated with severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rash, diarrhea, colitis, hypophysitis, hepatotoxicity, and hypothyroidism, which in some cases lead to high morbidity, are potentially life-threatening, and limit the duration of treatment. The incidence of severe irAEs increases further when programmed cell death-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors are combined with anti-CTLA-4 and/or other multidrug regimens. Probody therapeutics, a new class of recombinant, proteolytically activated antibody prodrugs are in early development and are designed to exploit the hallmark of dysregulation of tumor protease activity to deliver their therapeutic effects within the tumor microenvironment (TME) rather than peripheral tissue. TME targeting, rather than systemic targeting, may reduce irAEs in tissues distant from the tumor. Probody therapeutic technology has been applied to multiple antibody formats, including immunotherapies, Probody drug conjugates, and T-cell-redirecting bispecific Probody therapeutics. In preclinical models, Probody therapeutics have consistently maintained anticancer activity with improved safety in animals compared with the non-Probody parent antibody. In the clinical setting, Probody therapeutics may expand or create therapeutic windows for anticancer therapies.

Pegilodecakin combined with pembrolizumab or nivolumab for patients with advanced solid tumours (IVY): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: IL-10 has anti-inflammatory and CD8+ T-cell stimulating activities. Pegilodecakin (pegylated IL-10) is a first-in-class, long-acting IL-10 receptor agonist that induces oligoclonal T-cell expansion and has single-agent activity in advanced solid tumours. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: We did a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 1b trial (IVY) at 12 cancer research centres in the USA. Patients were assigned sequentially into cohorts. Here, we report on all enrolled patients from two cohorts treated with pegilodecakin combined with anti-PD-1 inhibitors. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced malignant solid tumours refractory to previous therapies, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients with uncontrolled infectious diseases were excluded. Pegilodecakin was provided in single-use 3 mL vials and was self-administered subcutaneously by injection at home at 10 µg/kg or 20 µg/kg once per day in combination with pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 200 mg every 3 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks at the approved dosing), both of which were given intravenously at the study site. Patients received pembrolizumab or nivolumab with pegilodecakin until disease progression, toxicity necessitating treatment discontinuation, patient withdrawal of consent, or study end. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, assessed in all patients enrolled in the study who received any amount of study medication including at least one dose of pegilodecakin, and pharmacokinetics (previously published). Secondary endpoints included objective response by immune-related response criteria in all patients who were treated and had evaluable measurements. The study is active but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02009449. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2015, and Sept 12, 2017, 111 patients were enrolled in the two cohorts. 53 received pegilodecakin plus pembrolizumab, and 58 received pegilodecakin plus nivolumab. 34 (31%) of 111 patients had non-small-cell lung cancer, 37 (33%) had melanoma, and 38 (34%) had renal cell carcinoma; one (<1%) patient had triple-negative breast cancer and one (<1%) had bladder cancer. Data cutoff was July 1, 2018. Median follow-up was 26·9 months (IQR 22·3-31·5) for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, 33·0 months (29·2-35·1) for those with melanoma, and 22·7 months (20·9-27·0) for those with renal cell carcinoma. At least one treatment-related adverse event occurred in 103 (93%) of 111 patients. Grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 73 (66%) of 111 patients (35 [66%] of 53 in the pembrolizumab group and 38 [66%] of 58 in the nivolumab group), the most common of which were anaemia (12 [23%] in the pembrolizumab group and 16 [28%] in the nivolumab group), thrombocytopenia (14 [26%] in the pembrolizumab group and 12 [21%] in the nivolumab group), fatigue (11 [21%] in the pembrolizumab group and 6 [10%] in the nivolumab group) and hypertriglyceridaemia (three [6%] in the pembrolizumab group and eight [14%] in the nivolumab group). There were no fatal adverse events determined to be related to the study treatments. Of the patients evaluable for response, objective responses were 12 (43%) of 28 (non-small-cell lung cancer), three (10%) of 31 (melanoma), and 14 (40%) of 35 (renal cell carcinoma). INTERPRETATION: In this patient population, pegilodecakin with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies had a manageable toxicity profile and preliminary antitumour activity. Pegilodecakin with pembrolizumab or nivolumab could provide a new therapeutic opportunity for previously treated patients with renal cell carcinoma and non-small-cell carcinoma. FUNDING: ARMO BioSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company.