Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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.

[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).

The SUB-urothelial DUrvalumab InjEction-1 (SUBDUE-1) trial: first-in-human trial in patients with bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab and examine the impact on tissue and circulating immune cell populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were chemotherapy and immunotherapy naïve (bacille Calmette-Guérin allowed) with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer or non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer planned for radical cystectomy (RC). The study was a Phase Ib 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab at three pre-determined doses (25, 75, 150 mg) diluted in 25 mL normal saline, injected at 25 locations (25 × 1 mL injections), at least 2 weeks before RC. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were recruited (10 male, one female). No significant changes were reported on American Urological Association Symptom Score or O'Leary Interstitial Cystitis Scale. In all, 14 adverse events (AEs) were reported (10 Grade 1, three Grade 2, one Grade 3), none considered immune-related. No Grade 4 or 5 AEs were recorded. All the patients underwent RC. Tissue immune populations changed following durvalumab injection (P = 0.012), with a statistically significant increase in M2-macrophage (CD163) when comparing the 25-150 mg dose (P = 0.021). Basal/mixed cancers showed a larger CD163 increase than luminal cancers (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab is feasible and safe without immune-related AEs and shows local immunological effects.

The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised trial of salvage radiotherapy versus surveillance for low-risk biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and surveillance for low-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence have competing risks and benefits. The efficacy of early SRT to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes compared to surveillance in patients with PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy and no identifiable recurrent disease evident on prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised Phase II trial. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is 3-year event-free survival, with events comprising one of PSA recurrence (PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL higher than baseline), radiological evidence of metastatic disease, or initiation of systemic or other salvage treatments. Secondary endpoints include patient-reported outcomes, treatment patterns, participant perceptions, and cost-effectiveness. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible participants have PSA recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, defined by serum PSA level of 0.2-0.5 ng/mL, deemed low risk according to modified European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk criteria (International Society for Urological Pathology Grade Group ≤2, PSA doubling time >12 months), with no definite/probable recurrent prostate cancer on PSMA-PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 participants will be recruited from five Australian centres and randomised 1:1 to SRT or surveillance. Participants will undergo 6-monthly clinical evaluation for up to 36 months. Androgen-deprivation therapy is not permissible. Enrolment commenced May 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN: ACTRN12622001478707).

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.

A phase 2 pilot study of water irrigation after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (WATIP) demonstrating safety, feasibility and activity.

PURPOSE: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) can recur, partly due to seeding of free tumour cells after transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intravesical chemotherapy post-TURBT can reduce the risk but is used infrequently and inconsistently due to cost, complexity and side effects. The objective of this study was to prospectively assess continuous bladder irrigation using water, which may be a safer and easier alternative with comparable effectiveness. METHODS: WATIP was a prospective, single-arm phase 2 study of water irrigation during and for at least 3 h after TURBT for bladder tumours noted on imaging or flexible cystoscopy. Participants were assessed clinically for adverse effects and with blood tests within 24 h for sodium, haemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase. The primary endpoints were safety (defined as < 10% adverse events of CTCAE grade ≥ 3), and feasibility (defined as the intervention being delivered as planned in > 90% of cases) and secondary endpoint was recurrence-free rates (RFR). RESULTS: Water irrigation was delivered as planned in 29 (97%) of 30 participants (median age 67 years, 25 (83%) males). The only adverse event (grade 2) was clot retention in one (3.3%) participant. Water irrigation significantly reduced urothelial cell counts in catheter effluent over time, unlike saline irrigation which did not. RFR was 56.2% (9/16 participants with low-risk NMIBC) at first cystoscopy (median interval 108 days) and 62.5% (5/8 evaluable low-risk NMIBC) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Water irrigation during and after TURBT is feasible and safe. Prospective assessment of its effect on NMIBC recurrence compared to post-TURBT intravesical chemotherapy is needed before recommending its use in routine clinical practice. Trial registration ANZCTR registration ID ACTRN12619000517178 on 1 April 2019.

Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma.

PSMA and FDG-PET as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in patients given [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): a biomarker analysis from a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, results from the TheraP trial showed that treatment with lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 improved frequency of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate and progression-free survival compared with cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In this study, we aimed to analyse gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET (PSMA-PET) and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET (FDG-PET) imaging parameters as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in this patient population. METHODS: TheraP was a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial that recruited men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after treatment with docetaxel who were suitable for cabazitaxel from 11 hospitals in Australia. Participants were required to be 18 years old or older; have adequate haematological, renal, and liver function; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised system using minimisation with a random component and that stratified patients by disease burden, previous treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone, and study site. Patients were either given cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to ten cycles) or [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (6·0-8·5 GBq intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six cycles). The primary study endpoint, analysed previously, was PSA response rate. The prespecified tertiary study endpoint was association between total tumour quantitative parameters on PSMA-PET, FDG-PET, and baseline characteristics with clinical outcomes. A SUVmean of 10 or higher on PSMA-PET was evaluated as a predictive biomarker for response to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel. A metabolic tumour volume (MTV) of 200 mL or higher on FDG-PET was tested as a prognostic biomarker. Both cutoff points were prespecified. The analysis was intention-to-treat, using logistic regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428. FINDINGS: 200 patients were randomly assigned between Feb 6, 2018, and Sept 3, 2019. 101 men were assigned to the cabazitaxel group and 99 were assigned to the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group. The median follow-up at data cutoff of July 20, 2020, was 18·4 months (IQR 12·8-21·8). 35 (35%) of 99 men who were assigned [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 and 30 (30%) of 101 men who were assigned cabazitaxel had high PSMA uptake (SUVmean of ≥10). Odds of PSA response to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel were significantly higher for men with SUVmean of 10 or higher compared with those with SUVmean of less than 10 (odds ratio [OR] 12·19 [95% CI 3·42-58·76] vs 2·22 [1·11-4·51]; padj=0·039 for treatment-by-SUVmean interaction). PSA response rate for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel was 32 (91% [95% CI 76-98]) of 35 men versus 14 (47% [29-65]) of 30 men in patients with SUVmean of 10 or higher, and 33 (52% [39-64]) of 64 men versus 23 (32% [22-45]) of 71 men in those with SUVmean of less than 10. High-volume disease on FDG-PET (MTV ≥200 mL) was seen in 30 (30%) of 99 men who were assigned [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 and 30 (30%) of 101 men who were assigned cabazitaxel. PSA response rate for both treatment groups combined for FDG-PET MTV of 200 mL or higher versus FDG-PET MTV of less than 200 mL was 23 (38% [95% CI 26-52]) of 60 men versus 79 (56% [48-65]) of 140 men (OR 0·44, 95% CI 0·23-0·84; padj=0·035). INTERPRETATION: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, PSMA-PET SUVmean was predictive of higher likelihood of favourable response to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 than cabazitaxel, which provides guidance for optimal [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 use. High FDG-PET MTV was associated with lower responses regardless of randomly assigned treatment, warranting further research for treatment intensification. A strength of this analysis is the validation of pre-specified cutpoints within a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Quantitative PET parameters used, however, require specialised software and are not yet routinely available in most clinics. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis Company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Movember Foundation, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.

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

BACKGROUND: Lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a radiolabelled small molecule that delivers ß radiation to cells expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), with activity and safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to compare [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 with cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this multicentre, unblinded, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. We recruited men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for whom cabazitaxel was considered the next appropriate standard treatment. Participants were required to have adequate renal, haematological, and liver function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Previous treatment with androgen receptor-directed therapy was allowed. Men underwent gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-flourine-18[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PET eligibility criteria for the trial were PSMA-positive disease, and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Men were randomly assigned (1:1) to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (6·0-8·5 GBq intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six cycles) or cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to ten cycles). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined by a reduction of at least 50% from baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2018, and Sept 3, 2019, we screened 291 men, of whom 200 were eligible on PET imaging. Study treatment was received by 98 (99%) of 99 men randomly assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus 85 (84%) of 101 randomly assigned to cabazitaxel. PSA responses were more frequent among men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group than in the cabazitaxel group (65 vs 37 PSA responses; 66% vs 37% by intention to treat; difference 29% (95% CI 16-42; p<0·0001; and 66% vs 44% by treatment received; difference 23% [9-37]; p=0·0016). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 32 (33%) of 98 men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 45 (53%) of 85 men in the cabazitaxel group. No deaths were attributed to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617. INTERPRETATION: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer led to a higher PSA response and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events. [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a new effective class of therapy and a potential alternative to cabazitaxel. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride, It's a Bloke Thing, and CAN4CANCER.

Enzalutamide with Standard First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, an androgen-receptor inhibitor, has been associated with improved overall survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. It is not known whether adding enzalutamide to testosterone suppression, with or without early docetaxel, will improve survival in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients to receive testosterone suppression plus either open-label enzalutamide or a standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy (standard-care group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival as determined by the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1125 men underwent randomization; the median follow-up was 34 months. There were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 80% (based on 94 events) in the enzalutamide group and 72% (based on 130 events) in the standard-care group. Better results with enzalutamide were also seen in PSA progression-free survival (174 and 333 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; P<0.001) and in clinical progression-free survival (167 and 320 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in the enzalutamide group than in the standard-care group (33 events and 14 events, respectively). Fatigue was more common in the enzalutamide group; seizures occurred in 7 patients in the enzalutamide group (1%) and in no patients in the standard-care group. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide was associated with significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression. The enzalutamide group had a higher incidence of seizures and other toxic effects, especially among those treated with early docetaxel. (Funded by Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs and others; ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304) ANZCTR number, ACTRN12614000110684; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446405; and EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2014-003190-42.).

Combined impact of lipidomic and genetic aberrations on clinical outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Both changes in circulating lipids represented by a validated poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS) and somatic tumour genetic aberrations are individually associated with worse clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A key question is how the lipid environment and the cancer genome are interrelated in order to exploit this therapeutically. We assessed the association between the poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS), somatic genetic aberrations and clinical outcomes in mCRPC. METHODS: We performed plasma lipidomic analysis and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing on 106 men with mCRPC commencing docetaxel, cabazitaxel, abiraterone or enzalutamide (discovery cohort) and 94 men with mCRPC commencing docetaxel (validation cohort). Differences in lipid levels between men ± somatic genetic aberrations were assessed with t-tests. Associations between the 3LS and genetic aberrations with overall survival (OS) were examined using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The 3LS was associated with shorter OS in the discovery (hazard ratio [HR] 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-3.3, p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.59-3.38, p < 0.001). Elevated plasma sphingolipids were associated with AR, TP53, RB1 and PI3K aberrations (p < 0.05). Men with both the 3LS and aberrations in AR, TP53, RB1 or PI3K had shorter OS than men with neither in both cohorts (p ≤ 0.001). The presence of 3LS and/or genetic aberration was independently associated with shorter OS for men with AR, TP53, RB1 and PI3K aberrations (p < 0.02). Furthermore, aggressive-variant prostate cancer (AVPC), defined as 2 or more aberrations in TP53, RB1 and/or PTEN, was associated with elevated sphingolipids. The combination of AVPC and 3LS predicted for a median survival of ~12 months. The relatively small sample size of the cohorts limits clinical applicability and warrants future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated circulating sphingolipids were associated with AR, TP53, RB1, PI3K and AVPC aberrations in mCRPC, and the combination of lipid and genetic abnormalities conferred a worse prognosis. These findings suggest that certain genotypes in mCRPC may benefit from metabolic therapies.

'Pain-free TRUS B': a phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of methoxyflurane with periprostatic local anaesthesia to reduce the discomfort of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (ANZUP 1501).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of inhaled methoxyflurane to periprostatic infiltration of local anaesthetic (PILA) during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBs) improved pain and other aspects of the experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial, involving 420 men undergoing their first TRUSB. The intervention was PILA plus a patient-controlled device containing either 3 mL methoxyflurane, or 3 mL 0.9% saline plus one drop of methoxyflurane to preserve blinding. The primary outcome was the pain score (0-10) reported by the participant after 15 min. Secondary outcomes included ratings of other aspects of the biopsy experience, willingness to undergo future biopsies, urologists' ratings, biopsy completion, and adverse events. RESULTS: The mean (SE) pain scores 15 min after TRUSB were 2.51 (0.22) in those assigned methoxyflurane vs 2.82 (0.22) for placebo (difference 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75 to 0.14; P = 0.18). Methoxyflurane was associated with better scores for discomfort (difference -0.48, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.03; P = 0.035, adjusted [adj.] P = 0.076), whole experience (difference -0.50, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.08; P = 0.021, adj. P = 0.053), and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.12-2.49; P = 0.01) than placebo. Methoxyflurane resulted in higher scores for drowsiness (difference +1.64, 95% CI 1.21-2.07; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) and dizziness (difference +1.78, 95% CI 1.31-2.24; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) than placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of ≥ grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that methoxyflurane improved pain scores at 15 min, however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Self-reported lack of energy or feeling depressed 12 months after treatment in men diagnosed with prostate cancer within a population-based registry.

OBJECTIVE: Feeling depressed and lethargic are common side effects of prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatments. We examined the incidence and severity of feeling depressed and lack of energy in patients in a population based PCa registry. METHODS: We included men diagnosed with PCa between 2015 and 2019 in Victoria, Australia, and enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The primary outcome measures were responses to two questions on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) patient reported instrument: problems with feeling depressed and problems with lack of energy 12 months following treatment. We evaluated associations between these and age, cancer risk category, treatment type, and urinary, bowel, and sexual function. RESULTS: Both outcome questions were answered by 9712 out of 12,628 (77%) men. 981 patients (10%) reported at least moderate problems with feeling depressed; 1563 (16%) had at least moderate problems with lack of energy and 586 (6.0%) with both. Younger men reported feeling depressed more frequently than older men. Lack of energy was more common for treatments that included androgen deprivation therapy than not (moderate/big problems: 31% vs. 13%), irrespective of disease risk category. Both outcomes were associated with poorer urinary, bowel, and sexual functional domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported depressive feelings and lack of energy were frequent in this population-based registry. Problems with feeling depressed were more common in younger men and lack of energy more common in men having hormonal treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the incidence of these symptoms in these at-risk groups and be able to screen for them.

Predictors of real-world utilisation of docetaxel combined with androgen deprivation therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel has emerged as a standard-of-care for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Uptake of docetaxel for mHSPC in Australia has not previously been reported. AIMS: To investigate the real-world uptake of docetaxel in mHSPC and to identify predictors of utilisation of docetaxel in mHSPC. METHODS: Men diagnosed from June 2014 to December 2018 and enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic) were included. Data collected include demographics, diagnosis method and institution, staging investigations and treatments within 12 months of diagnosis. Wilcoxon rank-sum, Chi-squared and trend tests were used to identify predictors of docetaxel utilisation. All predictors were entered as covariates simultaneously into a multivariable logistic regression model. Statistical significance was set at 0.05 (two sided). RESULTS: In all, 1014 men with mHSPC were analysed, 25% of whom received docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy. Uptake of docetaxel increased from 20% in 2014 to 33% in 2018. Predictors of higher usage of docetaxel were younger age and treatment in a private hospital, with both remaining significant on multivariable analysis. Notably, the proportion of men aged <70 years receiving docetaxel increased from 54% in 2014-2015 to 64% in 2016-2018, while in men aged ≥70 years the comparative figures were 15% and 22% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although docetaxel was not used in the majority of cases, there was a clear increase in docetaxel uptake, especially in younger men following publication of the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE trials. Identifying barriers to real-world implementation of pivotal clinical trial data is critical to improving outcomes in mHSPC.

Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo. INTERPRETATION: Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

A phase I open label dose-escalation study to evaluate the tolerability, safety and immunological efficacy of sub-urothelial durvalumab injection in adults with muscle-invasive or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (SUBDUE-1, SUB-urothelial DUrvalumab injection-1 study): clinical trial protocol.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents the clinical trial protocol for a phase I open label dose-escalation study to evaluate the tolerability, safety and immunological efficacy of sub-urothelial durvalumab injection in adults with muscle-invasive or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), the SUB-urothelial DUrvalumab injection-1 study (SUBDUE-1). The primary objectives of this study are to assess the safety of sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab using patient reported outcome measures and observed local or systemic adverse events. The secondary objectives are to examine the local immunological efficacy of sub-urothelial administration of durvalumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The SUBDUE-1 trial will include adult patients with either high-risk NMIBC or MIBC, who are scheduled for radical cystectomy or who have refused or are unsuitable for systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Three fixed total dose levels of durvalumab (25, 75, 150 mg) will be studied to identify a dose suitable to be taken forward into phase II trials. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the trial intervention in terms of the incidence and severity of adverse events and the potential establishment of dose-limiting toxicities. The secondary efficacy endpoints include rates of pT0 status at resection, lymph node status, as well as the change in distribution of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and tumour-activated macrophages between pre- and post-injection bladder biopsies. Translational studies will focus on bladder tumour molecular sub-typing, immune infiltrate characterisation, and immune checkpoint protein expression relative to efficacy end-points. OUTCOME AND SIGNIFICANCE: If proven safe and effective, this novel strategy comprising sub-urothelial durvalumab injections aimed at promoting an anti-tumour immune reaction, will provide additional treatment options for reducing tumour recurrence and progression in treatment-naïve patients with high-risk NMIBC or in patients with bacille Calmette-Guérin-refractory NMIBC. Local administration of durvalumab may be associated with a reduced rate of immunological side-effects and lower costs when compared to systemic delivery.

ENZA-p trial protocol: a randomized phase II trial using prostate-specific membrane antigen as a therapeutic target and prognostic indicator in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide (ANZUP 1901).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the activity and safety of lutetium-177 (177 Lu)-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) commencing enzalutamide, who are at high risk of early progression, and to identify potential prognostic and predictive biomarkers from imaging, blood and tissue. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: ENZA-p (ANZUP 1901) is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Participants are randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or enzalutamide plus 177 Lu-PSMA-617 7.5 GBq on Days 15 and 57. Two additional 177 Lu-PSMA-617 doses are allowed, informed by Day-92 Gallium-68 (68 Ga)-PSMA positron emission tomography (PET; up to four doses in total). The primary endpoint is prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS). Other major endpoints include radiological PFS, PSA response rate, overall survival, health-related quality of life, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Key eligibility criteria include: biochemical and/or clinical progression; 68 Ga-PSMA PET-avid disease; no prior androgen signalling inhibitor, excepting abiraterone; no prior chemotherapy for mCRPC; and ≥2 high-risk features for early enzalutamide failure. Assessments are 4 weekly during study treatment, then 6 weekly until radiographic progression. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) are used to assess imaging conducted every 12 weeks, 68 Ga-PSMA PET at baseline, Days 15 and 92, and at progression, and 18 F-fluorine deoxyglucose (18 F-FDG) PET at baseline and progression. Translational samples include blood (and optional biopsies) at baseline, Day 92, and first progression. Correlative studies include identification of prognostic and predictive biomarkers from 68 Ga-PSMA and 18 F-FDG PET/CT, circulating tumour cells and circulating tumour DNA. The trial will enrol 160 participants, providing 80% power with a two-sided type-1 error rate of 5% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.625 assuming a median PSA-PFS of 5 months with enzalutamide alone. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The combination of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 and enzalutamide may be synergistic. ENZA-p will determine the safety and efficacy of the combination in addition to developing predictive and prognostic biomarkers to better guide treatment decisions.

UpFrontPSMA: a randomized phase 2 study of sequential 177 Lu-PSMA-617 and docetaxel vs docetaxel in metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (clinical trial protocol).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity and safety of sequential lutetium-177 (177 Lu)-PSMA-617 and docetaxel vs docetaxel on a background of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with de novo metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: UpFrontPSMA (NCT04343885) is an open-label, randomized, multicentre, phase 2 trial, recruiting 140 patients at 12 Australian centres. Key eligibility criteria include: prostate cancer with a histological diagnosis within 12 weeks of screening commencement; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/mL at diagnosis; ≤4 weeks on ADT; evidence of metastatic disease on computed tomography (CT) and/or bone scan; high-volume prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-avid disease with a maximum standardized uptake value >15; and absence of extensive discordant fluorodeoxyglcuose (FDG)-positive, PSMA-negative disease. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 and 18 F-FDG positron-emission tomography (PET)/CT undergo central review to determine eligibility. Patients are randomized 1:1 to experimental treatment, Arm A (177 Lu-PSMA-617 7.5GBq q6w × 2 cycles followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q3w × 6 cycles), or standard-of-care treatment, Arm B (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q3w × 6 cycles). All patients receive continuous ADT. Patients are stratified based on disease volume on conventional imaging and duration of ADT at time of registration. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with undetectable PSA (≤0.2 ng/L) at 12 months after study treatment commencement. Secondary endpoints include safety, time to castration resistance, overall survival, PSA and radiographic progression-free survival, objective tumour response rate, early PSMA PET response, health-related quality of life, and frequency and severity of adverse events. Enrolment commenced in April 2020. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial will generate data on the activity and safety of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in men with de novo mHNPC in a randomized phase 2 design.