Initial Experience with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 After Regulatory Approval for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcome Prediction.

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Since the time of regulatory approval, however, real-world data have been lacking. This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and outcome predictors of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 at a major U.S. academic center. Methods: Patients with mCRPC who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital outside clinical trials were screened for inclusion. Patients who underwent [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 and had available outcome data were included in this study. Outcome data included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% decline), PSA progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Toxicity data were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.03. The study tested the association of baseline circulating tumor DNA mutational status in homologous recombination repair, PI3K alteration pathway, and aggressive-variant prostate cancer-associated genes with treatment outcome. Baseline PSMA PET/CT images were analyzed using SelectPSMA, an artificial intelligence algorithm, to predict treatment outcome. Associations with the observed treatment outcome were evaluated. Results: All 76 patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 met the inclusion criteria. A PSA response was achieved in 30 of 74 (41%) patients. The median PSA PFS was 4.1 mo (95% CI, 2.0-6.2 mo), and the median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI, 11.3-16.1 mo). Anemia of grade 3 or greater, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were observed in 9 (12%), 3 (4%), and 1 (1%), respectively, of 76 patients. Transient xerostomia was observed in 23 (28%) patients. The presence of aggressive-variant prostate cancer-associated genes was associated with a shorter PSA PFS (median, 1.3 vs. 6.3 mo; P = 0.040). No other associations were observed between circulating tumor DNA mutational status and treatment outcomes. Eighteen of 71 (25%) patients classified by SelectPSMA as nonresponders had significantly lower rates of PSA response than patients classified as likely responders (6% vs. 51%; P < 0.001), a shorter PSA PFS (median, 1.3 vs. 6.3 mo; P < 0.001), and a shorter OS (median, 6.3 vs. 14.5 mo; P = 0.046). Conclusion: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 offered in a real-world setting after regulatory approval in the United States demonstrated antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile. Artificial-intelligence-based analysis of baseline PSMA PET/CT images may improve patient selection. Validation of these findings on larger cohorts is warranted.

Efficacy and Toxicity of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the U.S. Expanded-Access Program and Comparisons with Phase 3 VISION Data.

The phase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) in prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSIs). The U.S. expanded-access program (EAP; NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP at 4 institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included OS, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (RR) of at least 50%, and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, outcome data, and toxicity between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using t testing of proportions and survival analyses. Results: In total, 117 patients with mCRPC who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 were eligible and included in this analysis. Patients enrolled in the EAP were more heavily pretreated with ARSI (≥2 ARSI regimens: 70% vs. 46%; P < 0.001) and had worse performance status at baseline (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≥ 2: 19% vs. 7%; P < 0.001) than VISION patients. EAP and VISION patients had similar levels of grade 3 or higher anemia (18% vs. 13%; P = 0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 8%; P = 0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs. 3%; P = 0.85) and similar PSA RRs (42% vs. 46%; P = 0.50) and OS (median: 15.1 vs. 15.3 mo; P > 0.05). Conclusion: Patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP were later in their disease trajectory than VISION patients. Patients enrolled in the EAP achieved similar PSA RRs and OS and had a safety profile similar to that of the VISION trial patients.

Olaparib Without Androgen Deprivation for High-Risk Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer Following Prostatectomy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Olaparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that provides benefit in combination with hormonal therapies in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who harbor homologous recombination repair (HRR) alterations. Its efficacy in the absence of androgen deprivation therapy has not been tested. Objective: To determine the activity of olaparib monotherapy among patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, single-arm nonrandomized controlled trial enrolled genetically unselected patients across 4 sites in the US from May 2017 to November 2022. Eligible patients had BCR disease following radical prostatectomy, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 6 months or shorter, an absolute PSA value of 1.0 ng/mL or higher, and a testosterone level of 150 ng/dL or higher. Intervention: Treatment was with olaparib, 300 mg, by mouth twice daily until doubling of the baseline PSA, clinical or radiographic progression, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary end point was a confirmed 50% or higher decline in PSA from baseline (PSA50). Key secondary end points were outcomes by HRR alteration status, as well as safety and tolerability. Results: Of the 51 male patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [6.8] years), 13 participants (26%) had a PSA50 response, all within the HRR-positive group (13 of 27 participants [48%]). All 11 participants with BRCA2 alterations experienced a PSA50 response. Common adverse events were fatigue in 32 participants (63%), nausea in 28 (55%), and leukopenia in 22 (43%), and were consistent with known adverse effects of olaparib. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, olaparib monotherapy led to high and durable PSA50 response rates in patients with BRCA2 alterations. Olaparib warrants further study as a treatment strategy for some patients with BCR prostate cancer but does not have sufficient activity in those without HRR alterations and should not be considered for those patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03047135.

High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Combined with Docetaxel in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial.

High-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) administered to produce pharmacologic concentrations shows promise in preclinical models and small clinical trials, but larger prospective randomized trials are lacking. We evaluated the clinical benefit of combining HDIVC with docetaxel in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, 47 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m2 i.v.) with either HDIVC (1 g/kg) or placebo. Coprimary endpoints were PSA50 response and adverse event rates. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and quality of life measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate instrument. Correlative analyses included pharmacokinetics and oxidative stress markers. Eighty-nine percent of patients previously had three or more lines of therapy. The PSA50 response rate was 41% in the HDIVC group and 33% in the placebo group (P = 0.44), with comparable adverse event rates in both groups. There were no significant differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate scores. The median radiographic progression-free survival was not significantly different between the HDIVC and placebo groups, with durations of 10.1 and 10.0 months (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-2.75; P = 0.40), respectively. The median overall survival was 15.2 months in the HDIVC group and 29.5 months in the placebo group (HR, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-4.58; P = 0.11). HDIVC did not decrease F2-isoprostanes, indicators of oxidative stress. The study was suspended after prespecified interim analysis indicated futility in achieving primary endpoints. In this patient population, combining HDIVC with docetaxel did not improve PSA response, toxicity, or other clinical outcomes compared with docetaxel alone. Findings do not support the routine use of HDIVC in mCRPC treatment outside of clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate HDIVC in cancer treatment. The addition of HDIVC to docetaxel in patients with mCRPC does not improve PSA response, toxicity, or other clinical outcomes compared with docetaxel alone. The routine use of HDIVC in mCRPC treatment is not supported outside of clinical trials.

Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Behavioral Weight Loss Programs for Cancer Survivors Throughout Maryland: Protocol for a Pragmatic Trial and Participant Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials examining lifestyle interventions for weight loss in cancer survivors have been demonstrated to be safe, feasible, and effective. However, scalable weight loss programs are needed to support their widespread implementation. The ASPIRE trial was designed to evaluate real-world, lifestyle-based, weight loss programs for cancer survivors throughout Maryland. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this protocol paper are to describe the design of a nonrandomized pragmatic trial, study recruitment, and baseline characteristics of participants. METHODS: Participants were aged ≥18 years, residing in Maryland, with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2, who reported a diagnosis of a malignant solid tumor, completed curative treatment, and had no ongoing or planned cancer treatment. Enrollment criteria were minimized to increase generalizability. The primary recruitment source was the Johns Hopkins Health System electronic health records (EHRs). Participants selected 1 of 3 remotely delivered weight loss programs: self-directed, app-supported, or coach-supported program. RESULTS: Participants were recruited across all 5 geographic regions of Maryland. Targeted invitations using EHRs accounted for 287 (84.4%) of the 340 participants enrolled. Of the 5644 patients invited through EHR, 5.1% (287/5644) enrolled. Participants had a mean age of 60.7 (SD 10.8) years, 74.7% (254/340) were female, 55.9% (190/340) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 58.5% (199/340) had a bachelor's degree, and the average BMI was 34.1 kg/m2 (SD 5.9 kg/m2). The most common types of cancers were breast (168/340, 49.4%), prostate (72/340, 21.2%), and thyroid (39/340, 8.5%). The self-directed weight loss program (n=91) included 25 participants who agreed to provide weights through a study scale; the app-supported program (n=142) included 108 individuals who agreed to provide their weight measurements; and the coach-supported weight loss program included 107 participants. We anticipate final analysis will take place in the fall of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Using EHR-based recruitment efforts, this study took a pragmatic approach to reach and enroll cancer survivors into remotely delivered weight loss programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04534309; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04534309. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54126.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Patient-reported Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E3805 Chemohormonal Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial (CHAARTED).

BACKGROUND: Chemohormonal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel (ADT + D) improves overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) at 12 mo versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the prognostic role of QOL is unknown in this population. OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between QOL, disease characteristics, and OS in men with mHSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this exploratory post hoc analysis, 790 patients with mHSPC completed the QOL instruments Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models tested the association between QOL and OS by clinical and disease characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline higher FACT-P trended toward improved survival after accounting for clinical variables (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.62, 1.04], p = 0.09), while higher 3-mo FACT-P was independently associated with better survival (HR 0.76 [0.58, 1.0], p = 0.05). Patients with the poorest QOL (bottom quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had longer survival if they received ADT + D rather than ADT alone (median OS 45.2 vs 34.4 mo, HR 0.75 [0.53, 1.05], p = 0.09, and 48.3 vs 29.3 mo, HR 0.69 [0.48, 0.99], p = 0.05 respectively). In contrast, patients with the best QOL (top quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had comparable survival irrespective of whether or not docetaxel was added (median OS 72.1 vs 51.7 mo, HR 0.92 [0.63, 1.36], p = 0.69, and 69.9 vs 68.9 mo, HR 1.11 [0.73, 1.67], p = 0.63, respectively). Survival was linked with baseline FACIT-F (HR 0.76 [0.57, 1.0], p = 0.05), but not BPI (HR 0.98 [0.75, 1.28], p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Three-month QOL had a stronger independent association with survival. The most symptomatic patients had longer survival with the addition of docetaxel; conversely, the least symptomatic patients did not appear to benefit. Consideration of QOL may enhance decision-making and patient selection when choosing chemohormonal treatment in mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life independently forecasted the survival of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the CHAARTED study. Close tracking of quality of life could help patients and clinicians make decisions about the appropriate treatment in this setting.

Characterization of structural, biochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of the LSD1 inhibitor bomedemstat in preclinical models.

INTRODUCTION: Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is emerging as a critical mediator of tumor progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is increasingly recognized as an adaptive mechanism of resistance in mCRPC patients failing androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies. Safe and effective LSD1 inhibitors are necessary to determine antitumor response in prostate cancer models. For this reason, we characterize the LSD1 inhibitor bomedemstat to assess its clinical potential in NEPC as well as other mCRPC pathological subtypes. METHODS: Bomedemstat was characterized via crystallization, flavine adenine dinucleotide spectrophotometry, and enzyme kinetics. On-target effects were assessed in relevant prostate cancer cell models by measuring proliferation and H3K4 methylation using western blot analysis. In vivo, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of bomedemstat are also described. RESULTS: Structural, biochemical, and PK/PD properties of bomedemstat, an irreversible, orally-bioavailable inhibitor of LSD1 are reported. Our data demonstrate bomedemstat has >2500-fold greater specificity for LSD1 over monoamine oxidase (MAO)-A and -B. Bomedemstat also demonstrates activity against several models of advanced CRPC, including NEPC patient-derived xenografts. Significant intra-tumoral accumulation of orally-administered bomedemstat is measured with micromolar levels achieved in vivo (1.2 ± 0.45 µM at the 7.5 mg/kg dose and 3.76 ± 0.43 µM at the 15 mg/kg dose). Daily oral dosing of bomedemstat at 40 mg/kg/day is well-tolerated, with on-target thrombocytopenia observed that is rapidly reversible following treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Bomedemstat provides enhanced specificity against LSD1, as revealed by structural and biochemical data. PK/PD data display an overall safety profile with manageable side effects resulting from LSD1 inhibition using bomedemstat in preclinical models. Altogether, our results support clinical testing of bomedemstat in the setting of mCRPC.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Have No Evidence of Disease After Metastasectomy: ECOG-ACRIN E2810.

PURPOSE: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo (Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

Pharmacogenetic and clinical risk factors for bevacizumab-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in prostate cancer patients treated on CALGB 90401 (Alliance).

The objective of this study was to discover clinical and pharmacogenetic factors associated with bevacizumab-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) 90401. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer received docetaxel and prednisone ± bevacizumab. Patients were genotyped using Illumina HumanHap610-Quad and assessed using cause-specific risk for association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. In 1008 patients, grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 9.5% and 3.8% of bevacizumab (n = 503) and placebo (n = 505) treated patients, respectively. Bevacizumab (P < 0.001) and age (P = 0.002) were associated with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. In 616 genetically estimated Europeans (n = 314 bevacizumab and n = 302 placebo treated patients), grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 9.6% and 2.0% of patients, respectively. One SNP (rs1478947; HR 6.26; 95% CI 3.19-12.28; P = 9.40 × 10-8) surpassed Bonferroni-corrected significance. Grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage rate was 33.3% and 6.2% in bevacizumab-treated patients with the AA/AG and GG genotypes, versus 2.9% and 1.9% in the placebo arm, respectively. Prospective validation of these findings and functional analyses are needed to better understand the genetic contribution to treatment-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

CRM1 regulates androgen receptor stability and impacts DNA repair pathways in prostate cancer, independent of the androgen receptor.

Among the known nuclear exportins, CRM1 is the most studied prototype. Dysregulation of CRM1 occurs in many cancers, hence, understanding the role of CRM1 in cancer can help in developing synergistic therapeutics. The study investigates how CRM1 affects prostate cancer growth and survival. It examines the role of CRM1 in regulating androgen receptor (AR) and DNA repair in prostate cancer. Our findings reveal that CRM1 influences AR mRNA and protein stability, leading to a loss of AR protein upon CRM1 inhibition. Furthermore, it highlights the involvement of HSP90 alpha, a known AR chaperone, in the CRM1-dependent regulation of AR protein stability. The combination of CRM1 inhibition with an HSP90 inhibitor demonstrates potent effects on decreasing prostate cancer cell growth and survival. The study further explores the influence of CRM1 on DNA repair proteins and proposes a strategy of combining CRM1 inhibitors with DNA repair pathway inhibitors to decrease prostate cancer growth. Overall, the findings suggest that CRM1 plays a crucial role in prostate cancer growth, and a combination of inhibitors targeting CRM1 and DNA repair pathways could be a promising therapeutic strategy.

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE). RESULTS: IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Bipolar androgen therapy plus nivolumab for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the COMBAT phase II trial.

Cyclic high-dose testosterone administration, known as bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), is a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we report the results of a multicenter, single arm Phase 2 study (NCT03554317) enrolling 45 patients with heavily pretreated mCRPC who received BAT (testosterone cypionate, 400 mg intramuscularly every 28 days) with the addition of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously every 28 days) following three cycles of BAT monotherapy. The primary endpoint of a confirmed PSA50 response rate was met and estimated at 40% (N = 18/45, 95% CI: 25.7-55.7%, P = 0.02 one-sided against the 25% null hypothesis). Sixteen of the PSA50 responses were achieved before the addition of nivolumab. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), median PSA progression-free survival, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. The ORR was 24% (N = 10/42). Three of the objective responses occurred following the addition of nivolumab. After a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the median rPFS was 5.6 (95% CI: 5.4-6.8) months, and median OS was 24.4 (95% CI: 17.6-31.1) months. BAT/nivolumab was well tolerated, resulting in only five (11%) drug related, grade-3 adverse events. In a predefined exploratory analysis, clinical response rates correlated with increased baseline levels of intratumoral PD-1 + T cells. In paired metastatic tumor biopsies, BAT induced pro-inflammatory gene expression changes that were restricted to patients achieving a clinical response. These data suggest that BAT may augment antitumor immune responses that are further potentiated by immune checkpoint blockade.

PrECOG PrE0807: A Phase 1b Feasibility Trial of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Without and with Lirilumab in Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Ineligible for or Refusing Cisplatin-based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy (RC) improves overall survival (OS) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, many patients are cisplatin ineligible; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Nivolumab without/with lirilumab prior to RC was investigated in cisplatin-ineligible patients in this phase 1b trial (NCT03532451) to determine its safety/feasibility. METHODS: Patients with localized MIBC received two doses of nivolumab (480 mg) alone (cohort 1) or with lirilumab (240 mg; cohort 2) prior to RC. Cohorts were enrolled sequentially. The key eligibility criteria were cT2-4aN0-1M0 stage and cisplatin ineligibility/refusal. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade (G) ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The key secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who underwent RC >6 wk after the last dose, CD8+ T-cell density change between pretreatment transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) and post-treatment RC, ypT0N0, 6 wk. In cohorts 1 and 2, ypT0N0 rates for patients with MIBC and RC were 17% and 21%,

The ENGAGE study: evaluation of a conversational virtual agent that provides tailored pre-test genetic education to cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Novel approaches are needed to ensure all patients with cancer have access to quality genetic education before genetic testing to enable informed treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to test the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) intervention for the delivery of genetic education by non-genetic providers to patients with cancer undergoing active treatment. METHODS: A conversational AI-based application was developed on the HealthFAX platform to provide tailored genetic education to patients with cancer and tested at Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 2021 and Feb 2022. Patients' responses around the adoption, use, and experience of the AI application were assessed. RESULTS: Out of 64 individuals who consented to the study, 51 accessed the tool. The responding participants had a mean age of 61 years (ranging from 30-90 years) with 39 individuals undergoing active treatment for breast cancer and 12 for advanced prostate cancer. All patients chose to complete the tool at home. The median time between study enrollment and AI application initiation was 1 day, and the median time to complete the application was 24 min. All participants in their survey responses felt that the tool was secure, easy to use, liked the convenience of viewing it at home, and felt it provided valuable information. Eighteen percent of participants viewed the application with a family member. Ninety-eight percent of the participants completed their genetic education prior to receiving their test results. In 16%, a pathogenic variant was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The 51 patients who adopted the AI application were highly satisfied with its usability and convenience. Our results support the continued evaluation of this cost-effective AI application in a large-scale study. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Tailored pre-test genetic education can be successfully delivered to patients with cancer undergoing active treatment via an AI application at their convenience.

A First-in-human, Dose-escalation Study of the Methionine Aminopeptidase 2 Inhibitor M8891 in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) is essential to endothelial cell growth and proliferation during tumor angiogenesis. M8891 is a novel orally bioavailable, potent, selective, reversible MetAP2 inhibitor with antiangiogenic and antitumor activity in preclinical studies. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of M8891 monotherapy were assessed in a phase I, first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, dose-escalation study (NCT03138538). Patients with advanced solid tumors received 7-80 mg M8891 once daily in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during cycle 1, with the aim to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Twenty-seven patients were enrolled across six dose levels. Two DLTs (platelet count decrease) were reported, one each at 60 and 80 mg/once daily M8891, resolving after treatment discontinuation. MTD was not determined. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was platelet count decrease. M8891 plasma concentration showed dose-linear increase up to 35 mg and low-to-moderate variability; dose-dependent tumor accumulation of methionylated elongation factor 1α, a MetAP2 substrate, was observed, demonstrating MetAP2 inhibition. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic response data showed that preclinically defined target levels required for in vivo efficacy were achieved at safe, tolerated doses. Seven patients (25.9%) had stable disease for 42-123 days. We conclude that M8891 demonstrates a manageable safety profile, with dose-proportional exposure and low-to-moderate interpatient variability at target pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic levels at ≤35 mg M8891 once daily. On the basis of the data, 35 mg M8891 once daily is the recommended phase II dose for M8891 monotherapy. This study forms the basis for future development of M8891 in monotherapy and combination studies. Significance: M8891 represents a novel class of reversible MetAP2 inhibitors and has demonstrated preclinical antitumor activity. This dose-escalation study assessed M8891 treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors. M8891 demonstrated favorable pharmacokinetics, tumoral target engagement, and a manageable safety profile, and thus represents a novel antitumor strategy warranting further clinical studies.