TALAPRO-3 clinical trial protocol: phase III study of talazoparib plus enzalutamide in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in combination with androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors are a promising therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, TALAPRO-3 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations. The primary end point is investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per RECIST 1.1 in soft tissue, or per PCWG3 criteria in bone. The TALAPRO-3 study will demonstrate whether the addition of talazoparib can improve the efficacy of enzalutamide as assessed by rPFS in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04821622 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registry Name: Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC. Date of Registration: 29 March 2021.

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

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

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

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

Neoadjuvant Talazoparib in Patients With Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive, Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03499353.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety of talazoparib in patients with advanced cancer and varying degrees of hepatic impairment.

AIM: This phase I study investigated talazoparib pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety in patients with advanced solid tumours and varying degrees of hepatic function. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours and normal hepatic function or varying degrees of hepatic impairment (mild, moderate or severe, based on National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group classification) received talazoparib 0.5 mg once daily for 22 calendar days. Plasma and urine samples after single and multiple doses were collected and analysed for talazoparib using validated assays. Plasma PK data from all patients were analysed using the population PK method. Plasma and urine PK parameters in PK-evaluable patients were calculated using noncompartmental analysis (NCA). Safety was monitored in all enrolled patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled; 37 had ≥1 PK concentration, among which 17 were evaluable for NCA. Population PK analysis (n = 37) indicated no significant impact of hepatic function on apparent clearance (CL/F) of talazoparib. Baseline creatinine clearance was the only significant covariate on CL/F (α = 0.05). NCA of data (n = 17) showed no clear trend for increase in exposure on day 22 with worsening hepatic function. Talazoparib protein binding was comparable in patients with varying hepatic function. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and the safety profile observed in this study was consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic impairment (mild, moderate or severe) has no impact on the PK of talazoparib. No dose modification is recommended for patients with advanced solid tumours and various degrees of hepatic impairment, and this labelling language has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

Talazoparib in Patients with a Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer: Detailed Safety Analyses from the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS: The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Talazoparib has no clinically relevant effect on QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The aims of this study were (i) to evaluate the effect of talazoparib (1 mg once daily) on cardiac repolarization in patients with advanced solid tumors by assessing corrected QT interval (QTc) and (ii) to examine the relationship between plasma talazoparib concentration and QTc. In this open-label phase 1 study, patients had continuous 12-lead ECG recordings at baseline followed by time-matched continuous ECG recordings and collection of talazoparib plasma pharmacokinetic samples predose and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 h postdose on treatment days 1 and 22 and before talazoparib administration on day 2. ECG recordings were submitted for independent central review where triplicate 10-s ECGs, extracted up to 15 min before pharmacokinetic samples, were assessed for RR, PR, QRS, and QT intervals and ECG morphology. QT interval was corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's (QTcF) and Bazett's (QTcB) formulae. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to examine the relationship between QTc and RR interval change from baseline and plasma talazoparib concentration. Thirty-seven patients received talazoparib. Mean change in QTcF from time-matched baseline ranged from -3.5 to 6.9 ms, with the greatest change 1 h postdose on day 22. No clinically relevant changes in PR, QRS, QTcB, QTcF, or RR intervals, heart rate, or ECG morphology were observed. No concentration-dependent effect on heart rate or QTc was observed. No deaths, permanent treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were reported. Talazoparib (1 mg once daily) had no clinically relevant effects on cardiac repolarization.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of DNA damage response pathway inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy.

The Effect of Renal Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies suggest that talazoparib is primarily eliminated unchanged via renal excretion. The current study investigated how varying degrees of renal impairment may affect the PK of talazoparib, and evaluated the safety and tolerability of talazoparib, in patients with advanced solid tumors with/without renal impairment. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors and normal renal function or different degrees of renal impairment measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR: mild = 60-89, moderate = 30-59, severe = 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) were enrolled in this open-label, non-randomized, phase I study. Talazoparib was administered orally at 0.5 mg/day for 22 days. Primary PK parameters included the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) at steady state (Day 22). Safety and tolerability were also investigated. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled. At Day 22, compared with patients with normal renal function (n = 9), patients with mild (n = 9), moderate (n = 8), or severe (n = 8) renal impairment had a 12.2%, 43.0%, and 163.3% increase in talazoparib AUC0-24, and a 11.1%, 31.6%, and 89.3% increase in talazoparib Cmax, respectively. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and overall there were no notable differences in the treatment-emergent adverse event profile across renal function groups. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to talazoparib increased with worsening renal impairment. Overall, this study confirms current dosing recommendations in patients with mild and moderate renal impairment (1 mg/day and 0.75 mg/day, respectively) and indicates that a lower starting dose of 0.5 mg/day should be considered for patients with severe renal impairment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02997163.

Evaluation of hepatic impairment on pharmacokinetics and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase 1 study evaluated the effect of hepatic impairment on pharmacokinetics and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients were dosed according to hepatic function classified by modified National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group criteria and group assignment [normal (A1 and A2), mild (B), moderate (C1 and C2), or severe (D)]. Primary pharmacokinetic endpoints included area under the concentration-time curve as daily exposure (AUCdaily) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) at steady state. Safety endpoints included types, incidence, seriousness, and relationship to crizotinib of adverse events. RESULTS: The AUCdaily and Cmax in patients with normal liver function were 7107 ng h/mL and 375.1 ng/mL (A1) and 5422 ng h/mL and 283.9 ng/mL (A2), respectively. The AUCdaily and Cmax ratios of adjusted geometric means for Groups B, C2, and D versus Group A1 were 91.12 and 91.20, 114.08 and 108.87, and 64.47 and 72.63, respectively. Any grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 75% of patients; grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 25%, including fatigue (6%), hyponatremia (5%), and hyperbilirubinemia (3%). CONCLUSIONS: No adjustment to the approved 250 mg twice daily (BID) dose of crizotinib is recommended for patients with mild hepatic impairment. The recommended dose is 200 mg BID for patients with moderate hepatic impairment, and the dose should not exceed 250 mg daily for patients with severe hepatic impairment. Adverse events appeared consistent among the hepatic impairment groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT01576406.

The reliability of assessment of oestrogen receptor expression on needle core biopsy specimens of invasive carcinomas of the breast.

AIM: To assess the reliability of assessment of oestrogen receptor expression on needle core biopsy specimens of invasive carcinomas of the breast. Previous studies have mostly been small, with a range of agreement from 62% to 100%. METHODS: Retrospective audit of 338 tumours surgically excised within 60 days of core biopsy, that had had oestrogen receptor assessed on both the core biopsy and tumour specimens. Surgical specimens were incised when fresh to ensure good fixation. External controls including a weakly positive tumour were included in each immunohistochemistry run. RESULTS: Oestrogen receptor expression was bimodal, with H score in both specimens of either 0 or >50 in 96% of tumours. Using H score cut-off of 10 for positivity, there was an agreement between core and excision in 334 of 338 tumours (98.8%). All discrepancies were between weakly positive and negative tumours. Intratumoral heterogeneity could explain the one tumour that was negative on core and positive on excision. H score tended to be slightly higher on core than excision (means 146 and 136). Better fixation on the core is the most likely explanation for this and for the three tumours that were positive on core and negative on excision. Repeat staining on tumours with discrepant results gave similar results in all except one case. An internal control was present in 97% of excisions and 55% of cores of oestrogen receptor-negative tumours; the internal control stained positively in all except two sections. CONCLUSION: Oestrogen receptor can be assessed reliably on needle core biopsies of invasive carcinomas of the breast.

Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the effect of mammographic parenchymal pattern on patient survival, mammographic features, and pathologic features of breast cancer in a screened population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We classified the parenchymal pattern (according to BI-RADS) of 759 screened women who presented with a screening-detected (n = 455) or interval (n = 304) invasive breast cancer. Pathologic details (tumor size, histologic grade, lymph node stage, vascular invasion, and histologic type) and mammographic appearances were recorded. Breast cancer-specific survival was ascertained, with a median follow-up of 9.0 years. RESULTS: An excess of interval cancers was seen in women with dense breasts (p < 0.0001). Screening-detected (but not interval) tumors were significantly smaller in fatty breasts (p = 0.014). Tumor grade, lymph node stage, vascular invasion, and histologic type did not vary significantly with mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected or interval cancers. Screening-detected cancers in fatty breasts were more likely to appear as indistinct (p = 0.003) or spiculated (p = 0.002) masses in contrast to cancers in dense breasts, which more commonly appeared as architectural distortions (p < 0.0001). No significant breast cancer-specific survival difference was seen by mammographic parenchymal pattern for screening-detected cancers (p = 0.75), interval cancers (p = 0.82), or both groups combined (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of screened women presenting with breast cancer is unrelated to dense mammographic parenchymal pattern despite an excess of interval cancers and larger screening-detected tumors in this group. These data support the mammographic screening of women with dense parenchymal patterns.

Use of autoantibodies in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and accounts for 6% of all cancer deaths. Current screening modalities for breast cancer diagnosis include mammography, digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, there is still an urgent need to develop an alternative modality of screening for earlier diagnosis. Autoantibodies to tumor-associated autoantigens can be elicited in breast cancer patients. Tumor-associated antigens vary between cancers and can be the result of a number of different events, including mutation, overexpression or altered expression patterns. The inherent amplification of signals provided by the host's own immune system to low levels of tumor-associated antigens in early disease provides a potential route to the early diagnosis of cancer. In addition, autoantibody responses in breast cancer have been correlated with patient survival and their response to treatment.