Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma deemed potentially ineligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy: Post hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-052 and LEAP-011.

BACKGROUND: First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care for platinum-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). No global standardized definition of platinum ineligibility exists. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with UC who met various criteria for platinum ineligibility. METHODS: Patients from KEYNOTE-052 and LEAP-011 deemed potentially platinum ineligible were pooled for this post hoc exploratory analysis as follows: group 1: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2; group 2: ECOG PS 2 and age ≥80 years, renal dysfunction, or visceral disease; and group 3: any two other factors regardless of ECOG PS. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. End points included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by blinded independent central review, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients treated with pembrolizumab from KEYNOTE-052 (n = 370) and LEAP-011 (n = 242) were included; the median (range) follow-up was 56.3 months (51.2-65.3 months) and 12.8 months (0.2-25.1 months), respectively. For group 1, ORR was 26.2%, median PFS was 2.7 months, and median OS was 10.1 months. For group 2, ORR ranged from 23.5% to 33.3%, median PFS ranged from 2.1 to 4.4 months, and median OS ranged from 9.1 to 10.1 months. For group 3, ORR ranged from 25.7% to 27.9%, median PFS ranged from 2.1 to 2.8 months, and median OS ranged from 9.0 to 10.6 months. Treatment-related adverse event rates were consistent across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline pembrolizumab has consistent antitumor activity and safety in patients with advanced UC categorized as potentially ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of the variable definitions of platinum ineligibility used.

Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The three-arm, phase III KEYNOTE-361 study did not meet its dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. This prespecified exploratory analysis assessed the association of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TMB and PD-L1 CPS were determined via whole-exome sequencing and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, respectively. The association was evaluated in each treatment arm using logistic regression [objective response rate (ORR)] and Cox proportional hazards regression models (PFS and OS); one-sided (pembrolizumab monotherapy; pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy) and two-sided (chemotherapy) nominal P values were calculated. Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment. Efficacy was evaluated by prespecified cutoffs of 175 mutations/exome (TMB) and CPS 10 (PD-L1). RESULTS: Of the 993 treated patients, 820 (82.6%) and 993 (100%) had evaluable TMB and CPS data, respectively. Continuous TMB was positively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab monotherapy (one-sided P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.007, respectively); PFS and OS for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (one-sided P = 0.007 and P = 0.010, respectively); and OS for chemotherapy alone (two-sided P = 0.040). Continuous PD-L1 CPS showed evidence of anticipated association with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab monotherapy. The subgroup with TMB ≥175 mutations/exome and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 had the highest PFS and OS improvements with pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that TMB may be predictive of the response to pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Prediction of undetectable circulating tumor DNA by comprehensive genomic profiling assay in metastatic prostate cancer: the SCRUM-Japan MONSTAR SCREEN project.

BACKGROUND: Undetectable circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is an obstacle to performing comprehensive genomic profiling in daily practice to identify genomic alterations. We investigated the associations between clinicopathological factors and undetectable ctDNA using a commercially available comprehensive genomic profiling assay in metastatic prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated with systemic treatment for metastatic prostate cancer were included. ctDNA was analyzed by FoundationOne®Liquid CDx at enrollment. The associations between clinicopathological characteristics and ctDNA detection were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of bone metastasis was associated with ctDNA detection (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 13.6 [1.71-108], P = 0.014). An algorithm predicting ctDNA detection using clinicopathological parameters was created. If ≥ 4 bone metastases were observed, ctDNA detection was estimated to be 98.9%. Among the patients with < 4 bone metastases, if two or three features among ISUP grade group 5, PSA level ≥ 10 ng/ml, and castration resistance were present, the ctDNA detection rate was 96.7% while the ctDNA detection rate was 86.3% if no or only one feature was present. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm created in this study is helpful in determining when to undertake comprehensive genomic profiling assay using blood.

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase 3 THOR Japanese subgroup analysis: erdafitinib in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations.

BACKGROUND: In the THOR trial (NCT03390504) Cohort 1, erdafitinib demonstrated significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) (median 12.1 versus 7.8 months) and reduced risk of death by 36% (hazard ratio 0.64, P = 0.005) compared with chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients with FGFR alterations who progressed after ≥ 1 prior treatments, including anti-PD-(L)1. There have been no reports of the Japanese subgroup results yet. METHODS: THOR Cohort 1 randomized patients to erdafitinib once daily or docetaxel/vinflunine once every 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). No specific statistical power was set for this Japanese subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Of 266 patients randomized, 27 (14 erdafitinib; 13 chemotherapy) were Japanese. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between treatments and to the overall population, except for more males, lower body weight, and more upper tract primary tumors among Japanese patients. Compared with chemotherapy, erdafitinib showed improved OS (median 25.4 versus 12.4 months), PFS (median 8.4 versus 2.9 months) and ORR (57.1% versus 15.4%). Any grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in all patients from both arms but Grade 3/4 AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower in the erdafitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed in the Japanese subgroup. CONCLUSION: In the Japanese subgroup, erdafitinib showed improved survival and response compared to chemotherapy, with no new safety concerns. These results support erdafitinib as a treatment option for Japanese mUC patients with FGFR alterations, and early FGFR testing after diagnosis of mUC should be considered.

Focal ground glass opacity of the lung in metachronous prostate and gastric cancer: A case report.

Chest computed tomography (CT) revealed a focal ground glass opacity (GGO) with a minimal solid area in a 75-year-old man. The shadow was located in the periphery of the right upper lobe and measured 11 mm in diameter. The patient had a medical history of metachronous prostate and gastric cancers. The patient had been treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer for 12 years and underwent subtotal gastrectomy for triple gastric cancers 7 months before. Since primary lung adenocarcinoma was suspected, CT-assisted percutaneous needle biopsy was performed. Histology revealed the sheet-like and trabecular proliferation of atypical cells, suggesting that the lesion was moderately to poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Adenocarcinoma cells showed subepithelial extension causing the thickening of alveolar walls. A tumor thrombus was not detected in the blood or lymphatic vessels. Immunohistochemistry revealed that carcinoma cells were negative for cytokeratin 7 (CK7), CK20, thyroid transcription factor-1 and CDX2 and positive for prostate-specific antigen and P504S. Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma from prostate cancer. The disease remained stable for 4 months after the diagnosis, and no new lesions were observed on chest CT. Metastatic carcinoma rarely presents with focal GGO. Lung biopsy is necessary to identify the pathology of the lesion, and the primary site needs to be confirmed by immunohistochemistry with specific markers, particularly in a case of metachronous multiple cancers. A tumor thrombus, which is suggestive of lymphangitic carcinomatosis or pulmonary tumor thrombotic microangiopathy, also needs to be evaluated.

Japanese clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer 2023.

This fourth edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2023 is compiled. It was revised under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, with members selected from multiple academic societies and related organizations (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, the Department of EBM and guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Japanese Society of Pathology, and the patient group (NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association)), in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2020 ver. 3.0). The most important feature of this revision is the adoption of systematic reviews (SRs) in determining recommendations for 14 clinical questions (CQs). Qualitative SRs for these questions were conducted, and the final recommendations were made based on the results through the votes of 24 members of the guideline development group. Five algorithms based on these results were also created. Contents not covered by the SRs, which are considered textbook material, have been described in the general statement. In the general statement, a literature search for 14 areas was conducted; then, based on the general statement and CQs of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2016, the findings revealed after the 2016 guidelines were mainly described. This article provides an overview of these guidelines.

Expert Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Among Men with Prostate Cancer Taking Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor + Novel Hormonal Therapy Combination Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT. METHODS: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves.

PD-1 inhibition with retifanlimab and/or arginase inhibition with INCB001158 in Japanese patients with solid tumors: A phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Retifanlimab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death protein-1, and INCB001158 is an oral arginase inhibitor. This phase Ib study investigated retifanlimab, INCB001158, and their combination in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients received retifanlimab (500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W] i.v.) or escalating doses of INCB001158 (75 or 100 mg twice daily [BID]) monotherapy in Part 1 and combination of retifanlimab (500 mg Q4W) and INCB001158 (100 mg BID) in Part 2. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and determination of recommended phase II doses in Japanese patients. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (retifanlimab or INCB001158 monotherapy and combination; n = 6 each) were enrolled at 2 sites in Japan. There were no DLTs, fatal adverse events (AEs), or discontinuations due to AEs. Rash (all grade 1) was the most common treatment-emergent AE with retifanlimab (n = 6). Treatment-related AEs were reported with retifanlimab (n = 4) or INCB001158 (n = 2) monotherapy and with combination (n = 4); an immune-related AE (thyroid disorder, grade 2) was reported with combination. Two responses were observed with retifanlimab monotherapy (1 complete, 1 partial) and 1 stable disease (SD), for an overall response rate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-77.7) and disease control rate (DCR) of 50% (95% CI, 11.8-88.2). Three patients had SD with INCB001158 monotherapy (DCR 50%; 95% CI, 11.8-88.2). No responses or SD were observed with combination therapy. CONCLUSION: Retifanlimab, INCB001158, and their combination had acceptable safety profiles. Promising retifanlimab antitumor activity warrants further investigation in Japanese patients.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

A Phase I Study of Acapatamab, a Half-life Extended, PSMA-Targeting Bispecific T-cell Engager for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Safety and efficacy of acapatamab, a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) x CD3 bispecific T-cell engager were evaluated in a first-in-human study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC refractory to androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy received target acapatamab doses ranging from 0.003 to 0.9 mg in dose exploration (seven dose levels) and 0.3 mg (recommended phase II dose) in dose expansion intravenously every 2 weeks. Safety (primary objective), pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity (secondary objectives) were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 133 patients (dose exploration, n = 77; dose expansion, n = 56) received acapatamab. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event seen in 97.4% and 98.2% of patients in dose exploration and dose expansion, respectively; grade ≥ 3 was seen in 23.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Most CRS events were seen in treatment cycle 1; incidence and severity decreased at/beyond cycle 2. In dose expansion, confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses (PSA50) were seen in 30.4% of patients and radiographic partial responses in 7.4% (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1). Median PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-4.9], radiographic PFS per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 was 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.0-5.4). Acapatamab induced T-cell activation and increased cytokine production several-fold within 24 hours of initiation. Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected in 55% and impacted serum exposures in 36% of patients in dose expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Acapatamab was safe and tolerated and had a manageable CRS profile. Preliminary signs of efficacy with limited durable antitumor activity were observed. Acapatamab demonstrated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activity.

TAS0313 plus Pembrolizumab for Post-Chemotherapy Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Naïve Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAS0313, a multi-epitope long peptide vaccine, plus pembrolizumab in post-chemotherapy immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). TAS0313 9 mg was administered subcutaneously followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg on Day 1, and as monotherapy on Day 8 and 15 of Cycles 1 and 2, and Day 1 of subsequent cycles in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Biomarkers of response were assessed. In 36 patients enrolled, the ORR was 33.3% (complete response: 7 patients; partial response: 5 patients). Median PFS was 5.0 months; 6- and 12-month progression-free rates were 46.4% and 36.5%, respectively. Median OS was not reached; 6-, 12-, and 24-month OS rates were 83.3%, 72.2%, and 55.1%, respectively. In post hoc analysis, patients with a tumor infiltrating CD8+ lymphocyte (CD8+ TIL) count ≥99 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥50 and lymphocyte count >1,380 cells/µL had higher ORRs and prolonged PFS versus patients with a CD8+ TIL count <99, PD-L1 CPS <50, and lymphocyte count ≤1,380 cells/µL. Thirty-four (94.4%) patients receiving combination therapy experienced treatment-related adverse events (AE), with pyrexia (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site reactions (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site induration (n = 6, 16.7%), and malaise (n = 6, 16.7%) the most common. No grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs occurred in ≥10% of patients. TAS0313 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy showed promising efficacy and manageable safety in la/mUC. Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI-183824.

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial.

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Xaluritamig, a STEAP1 × CD3 XmAb 2+1 Immune Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from Dose Exploration in a First-in-Human Study.

Xaluritamig (AMG 509) is a six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1)-targeted T-cell engager designed to facilitate lysis of STEAP1-expressing cancer cells, such as those in advanced prostate cancer. This first-in-human study reports monotherapy dose exploration for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), primarily taxane pretreated. Ninety-seven patients received ≥1 intravenous dose ranging from 0.001 to 2.0 mg weekly or every 2 weeks. MTD was identified as 1.5 mg i.v. weekly via a 3-step dose. The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 72%), fatigue (45%), and myalgia (34%). CRS occurred primarily during cycle 1 and improved with premedication and step dosing. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and RECIST responses across cohorts were encouraging [49% PSA50; 24% objective response rate (ORR)], with greater frequency at target doses ≥0.75 mg (59% PSA50; 41% ORR). Xaluritamig is a novel immunotherapy for prostate cancer that has shown encouraging results supporting further development. SIGNIFICANCE: Xaluritamig demonstrated encouraging responses (PSA and RECIST) compared with historical established treatments for patients with late-line mCRPC. This study provides proof of concept for T-cell engagers as a potential treatment for prostate cancer, validates STEAP1 as a target, and supports further clinical investigation of xaluritamig in prostate cancer. See related commentary by Hage Chehade et al., p. 20. See related article by Nolan-Stevaux et al., p. 90. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Baseline characteristics may impact treatment duration of cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC: a subanalysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Cabazitaxel has demonstrated improvements in overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the pivotal comparison clinical trials TROPIC, PROSELICA and CARD. However, these trials include mCRPC patients with similar characteristics, and there are limited data on how baseline characteristics affect treatment discontinuation in the patient population. METHODS: To assess individual factors that may impact the discontinuation rate of cabazitaxel treatment, we conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a nationwide all-case, post-marketing surveillance of cabazitaxel in Japan. Patients were grouped according to the number of cabazitaxel treatment cycles received (1-2 and ≥3 cycles). Predictive factors were identified through multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Across 660 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, 70.2% received ≥3 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment. Those receiving 1-2 cycles of cabazitaxel had a greater proportion of patients with poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, presence of lung and liver metastases, higher prostate-specific antigen level and prior radiation therapy at baseline. Regardless of the number of cabazitaxel cycles received, the primary reason for discontinuation was progression of disease rather than adverse events. Compared with those receiving 1-2 cycles, a lower proportion of patients receiving 3-10 and ≥11 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment experienced adverse events. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between early discontinuation and presence of liver lesions, poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status and higher prostate-specific antigen level at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Post-marketing surveillance data suggest physicians should individualize cabazitaxel treatment based on certain patient characteristics at baseline.

First-line talazoparib with enzalutamide in HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial.

Preclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197 .