Apalutamide for prostate cancer: Multicentre and multidisciplinary real-world study of 227 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apalutamide prostate cancer compared to the pivotal trials patients and to identify the first subsequent therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: The study is prospective and observational based on real-world evidence, performed by different medical disciplines and eight academics centres around Barcelona, Spain. It included all patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with apalutamide from June 2018 to December 2022. RESULTS: Of 227 patients treated with apalutamide, 10% had ECOG-PS 2, and 41% were diagnosed with new-generation imaging. In the mHSPC group (209 patients), 75 years was the median age, 53% had synchronous metastases, and 22% were M1a. In the nmCRPC (18 patients), 82 years was the median age, and 81% ≤6 months had PSA doubling time. Patients achieved PSA90 in 92% of mHSPC and 50% of nmCRPC and PSA ≤0.2 in 71% of mHSPC and 39% of nmCRPC. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40.1% of mHSPC and 44.4% of nmCRPC. After discontinuation of apalutamide due to disease progression, 54.5% in mHSPC and 75% in nmCRPC started chemotherapy, while after discontinuation because of adverse events, 73.3% in mHSPC and 100% in nmCRPC continued with other hormonal-therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of apalutamide were similar to that described in the pivotal trials, despite including an older and more comorbid population. Usually, subsequent therapies after apalutamide differed depending on the reason for discontinuation: by disease progression started chemotherapy and by adverse events hormonal sequencing.

Ilixadencel, a Cell-based Immune Primer, plus Sunitinib Versus Sunitinib Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Study.

Background: The prognosis of patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is poor. Whereas single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) is clearly insufficient, the effects can be enhanced by combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Innovative treatment options combining TKI and other immune-stimulating agents could prove beneficial. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effects on metastatic disease when two doses of allogeneic monocyte-derived dendritic cells (ilixadencel) are administrated intratumorally followed by nephrectomy and treatment with sunitinib compared with nephrectomy and sunitinib monotherapy, in patients with synchronous mRCC. Design setting and participants: A randomized (2:1) phase 2 multicenter trial enrolled 88 patients with newly diagnosed mRCC to treatment with the combination ilixadencel/sunitinib (ILIXA/SUN; 58 patients) or sunitinib alone (SUN; 30 patients). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoints were 18-mo survival rate and overall survival (OS). A secondary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed up to 18 mo after enrollment. Statistic evaluations included Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, Cox regression, and stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. Results and limitations: The median OS was 35.6 mo in the ILIXA/SUN arm versus 25.3 mo in the SUN arm (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.27; p = 0.25), while the 18-mo OS rates were 63% and 66% in the ILIXA/SUN and SUN arms, respectively. The confirmed ORR in the ILIXA/SUN arm were 42.2% (19/45), including three patients with complete response, versus 24.0% (six/25) in the SUN arm (p = 0.13) without complete responses. The study was not adequately powered to detect modest differences in survival. Conclusions: The study failed to meet its primary endpoints. However, ilixadencel in combination with sunitinib was associated with a numerically higher, nonsignificant, confirmed response rate, including complete responses, compared with sunitinib monotherapy. Patient summary: We studied the effects of intratumoral vaccination with ilixadencel followed by sunitinib versus sunitinib only in a randomized phase 2 study. The combination treatment showed numerically higher numbers of confirmed responses, suggesting an immunologic effect.