[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ENZA-p): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

The Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Primary Staging of Selected Renal Tumours: Initial Experience in a Multicentre Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Accurate primary staging of renal cancer with conventional imaging is challenging. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) may serve to improve the accuracy of renal cancer staging. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinicopathological and management differences for primary renal cancer staged with PSMA PET/CT in comparison to conventional imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of PSMA PET/CT scans performed for primary staging of renal cancer and incidental renal lesions at three sites in Brisbane, Australia between June 2015 and June 2020. Clinical characteristics, imaging, and histopathology were reviewed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinicopathological and management differences according to staging modality (PSMA PET/CT, conventional imaging) were assessed. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics and clinical parameters. Nonparametric methods were used for statistical analysis. Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of small-cell size categorical variables. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From a total of 120 PSMA PET/CT scans, 61 were included (52 staging, 9 incidental) for predominantly males (74%) with a mean age of 65.1 yr (standard deviation 12.0). Most primary lesions (40/51) were clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC; 98% PSMA-avid), eight were non-ccRCC (75% PSMA-avid), and three were non-RCC (oncocytoma; 67% PSMA-avid). PSMA PET identified a greater number of presumed metastatic lesions than conventional imaging (195 vs 160). A management change was observed for 32% of patients (20% major, 12% minor). Limitations include the retrospective design and selection bias, lack of blinding to PSMA reporting, and the use of different PSMA radiotracers. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT detected more metastases than conventional imaging and most renal cancers were PSMA-avid, resulting in a management change for one-third of the patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at a newer type of scan called PSMA PET/CT for first staging of kidney cancer. We found that this detects more metastasis and helps in decisions on changes in treatment for some patients. This type of imaging is a useful addition to conventional scans in tricky cases and may help in better selection of suitable treatments, but more studies are required.

Pre-post feasibility trial of a telephone-delivered exercise intervention for patients during chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the ECHO-R trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of exercise in reducing treatment-related morbidity and improving quality of life following a primary diagnosis of cancer have been well documented and have led to exercise being recommended by oncology societies for all people with a cancer diagnosis. However, these recommendations are derived from research typically involving cohorts with more common cancers and relatively good prognosis, such as breast and prostate. Evidence from these cancers may not apply to women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Therefore, the primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a home-based, telephone-delivered exercise intervention for women undergoing chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Exercise During Chemotherapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer (ECHO-R) trial is a single-arm, phase II, pre/postintervention trial of a 6-month, telephone-delivered exercise intervention (consistent with recommended exercise oncology prescription). The target sample size is 80 women who are currently undergoing (or are scheduled to receive) chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer. Recruitment is through participating hospital sites in Queensland, Australia, or via self-referral. The exercise intervention comprises 12 telephone sessions over a 6-month period delivered by trial-trained exercise professionals and supplemented (where feasible) by five sessions face to face. Exercise prescription is individualised and works towards an overall goal of achieving a weekly target of 150 min of moderate-intensity, mixed-mode exercise. Assessments via self-administered survey and physical fitness and function tests occur at baseline and then at 6 and 9 months postbaseline. Data to inform feasibility and safety are recorded as case notes by the exercise professional during each session. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the ECHO-R trial was granted by the Metro North Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2020/QRBW/67223) on 6 November 2020. Findings from the trial are planned to be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and both national and international exercise and oncology conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000042842.

Overall survival with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): secondary outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[18F]FDG) PET-CT. METHODS: TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[18F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete. FINDINGS: 291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1). INTERPRETATION: These results support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[18F]FDG-discordant disease. FUNDING: Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

Treatment patterns and outcomes in older adults with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Analysis of an Australian real-world cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second commonest malignancy and fifth leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Older men are more likely to develop PC but are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, leading to challenges in treatment selection in the real-world setting. We aimed to examine treatment patterns and outcomes in older Australians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 753 men with mCRPC within the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Clinical data were analysed retrospectively to assess outcomes including time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), PSA doubling time (PSADT), PSA50 response rate, and pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, stratified by age groups (<75y, 75-85y and >85y). Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared through log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on OS. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of men were aged <75y, 31% 75-85y, and 12% >85y. Patients ≥75y more frequently received only one line of systemic therapy (40% of <75y vs 66% 75-85y vs 68% >85y; P < 0.01). With increasing age, patients were more likely to receive androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) as initial therapy (42% of <75y vs 70% of 75-85y vs 84% of >85y; p < 0.01). PSA50 response rates or TTF did not significantly differ between age groups for chemotherapy or ARSIs. Patients >85y receiving enzalutamide had poorer OS but this was not an independent prognostic variable on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93(0.09-9.35); p = 0.95). PSADT >3 months was an independent positive prognostic factor for patients receiving any systemic therapy. Older patients who received docetaxel were more likely to experience AESIs (18% in <75y vs 37% 75-85y vs 33% >85y, p = 0.038) and to stop treatment as a result (21% in <75y vs 39% in 75-85y; p = 0.011). DISCUSSION: In our mCRPC cohort, older men received fewer lines of systemic therapy and were more likely to cease docetaxel due to adverse events. However, treatment outcomes were similar in most subgroups, highlighting the importance of individualised assessment regardless of age.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Clinical impact of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography (PET) on intensification or deintensification of advanced renal cell carcinoma management.

PURPOSE: There is an emerging role of the use of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in renal cell carcinoma. Herein, we report our experience in use of PSMA PET in recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent PSMA PET for suspected recurrent or de-novo metastatic RCC between 2015 and 2020 at three institutions was performed. The primary outcome was change in management (intensification or de-intensification) following PSMA PET scan. Secondary outcomes included histopathological correlation of PSMA avid sites, comparison of sites of disease on PSMA PET to diagnostic CT and time to systemic treatment.

Pembrolizumab Plus Olaparib for Patients With Previously Treated and Biomarker-Unselected Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III KEYLYNK-010 Trial.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC. METHODS: Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points. RESULTS: Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Real-world clinical outcomes and cost estimates of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment: does sequencing of taxanes and androgen receptor-targeted agents matter?

INTRODUCTION: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator. RESULTS: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

Recent Advances in Alkenyl sp2 C-H and C-F Bond Functionalizations: Scope, Mechanism, and Applications.

Alkenes and their derivatives are featured widely in a variety of natural products, pharmaceuticals, and advanced materials. Significant efforts have been made toward the development of new and practical methods to access this important class of compounds by selectively activating the alkenyl C(sp2)-H bonds in recent years. In this comprehensive review, we describe the state-of-the-art strategies for the direct functionalization of alkenyl sp2 C-H and C-F bonds until June 2022. Moreover, metal-free, photoredox, and electrochemical strategies are also covered. For clarity, this review has been divided into two parts; the first part focuses on currently available alkenyl sp2 C-H functionalization methods using different alkene derivatives as the starting materials, and the second part describes the alkenyl sp2 C-F bond functionalization using easily accessible gem-difluoroalkenes as the starting material. This review includes the scope, limitations, mechanistic studies, stereoselective control (using directing groups as well as metal-migration strategies), and their applications to complex molecule synthesis where appropriate. Overall, this comprehensive review aims to document the considerable advancements, current status, and emerging work by critically summarizing the contributions of researchers working in this fascinating area and is expected to stimulate novel, innovative, and broadly applicable strategies for alkenyl sp2 C-H and C-F bond functionalizations in the coming years.

Nivolumab plus rucaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the phase 2 CheckMate 9KD trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib. METHODS: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2-positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03338790.

Optimizing treatment selection and sequencing decisions for first-line maintenance therapy of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

The incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are increasing globally. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage in 80% of women. After standard, platinum-based, front-line chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents are successfully employed as maintenance strategies for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. Landmark clinical studies, including SOLO-1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA, have provided crucial insights on optimizing first-line maintenance treatment using PARP inhibitors. A group of ovarian cancer experts, primarily from low- and middle-income countries, met in September 2019 to discuss new developments for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer and its implications. Key implications of the evolving clinical data included: (1) olaparib or niraparib maintenance therapy appears to be the preferred choice for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations; hence, BRCA testing is beneficial in identifying these patients; (2) niraparib monotherapy and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab have demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients; (3) bevacizumab, niraparib alone, or observation can be an alternative for HRD-negative patients; (4) further data is warranted to explore the role of PARP inhibitors in treating HRD-negative, ovarian cancer patients to confirm findings of the exploratory analysis of PRIMA; (5) PARP inhibitors may be beneficial for stage IV ovarian cancer patients with inoperable disease and patients with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and (6) there is an urgent need to increase awareness in both clinicians and patients on BRCA and HRD testing for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. In clinical medicine, the limited availability of family history (FH) information and the complexity of FH criteria has hampered the implementation of BRCA testing. Moreover, many cancer patients with BRCA mutations are not tested because they do not meet the criteria for FH. Consequently, BRCA testing in many high income countries, including the US and Australia, is underused and used inappropriately, which has resulted in the loss of valuable opportunities for better cancer management and cancer prevention.