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.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in older adults with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Analysis of an Australian real-world cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second commonest malignancy and fifth leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Older men are more likely to develop PC but are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, leading to challenges in treatment selection in the real-world setting. We aimed to examine treatment patterns and outcomes in older Australians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 753 men with mCRPC within the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Clinical data were analysed retrospectively to assess outcomes including time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), PSA doubling time (PSADT), PSA50 response rate, and pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, stratified by age groups (<75y, 75-85y and >85y). Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared through log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on OS. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of men were aged <75y, 31% 75-85y, and 12% >85y. Patients ≥75y more frequently received only one line of systemic therapy (40% of <75y vs 66% 75-85y vs 68% >85y; P < 0.01). With increasing age, patients were more likely to receive androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) as initial therapy (42% of <75y vs 70% of 75-85y vs 84% of >85y; p < 0.01). PSA50 response rates or TTF did not significantly differ between age groups for chemotherapy or ARSIs. Patients >85y receiving enzalutamide had poorer OS but this was not an independent prognostic variable on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93(0.09-9.35); p = 0.95). PSADT >3 months was an independent positive prognostic factor for patients receiving any systemic therapy. Older patients who received docetaxel were more likely to experience AESIs (18% in <75y vs 37% 75-85y vs 33% >85y, p = 0.038) and to stop treatment as a result (21% in <75y vs 39% in 75-85y; p = 0.011). DISCUSSION: In our mCRPC cohort, older men received fewer lines of systemic therapy and were more likely to cease docetaxel due to adverse events. However, treatment outcomes were similar in most subgroups, highlighting the importance of individualised assessment regardless of age.

Patterns of Relapse in Australian Patients With Clinical Stage 1 Testicular Cancer: Utility of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Surveillance Recommendations.

PURPOSE: International guidelines advocate for active surveillance as the preferred treatment strategy for patients with stage 1 testicular cancer after orchidectomy although a personalized discussion is required. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an analysis of individuals registered in iTestis, Australia's testicular cancer registry, to describe the patterns of relapse and outcomes of patients treated in Australia where the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Surveillance Recommendations are widely adopted. RESULTS: A total of 650 individuals diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were included, 63% (411 of 650) seminoma and 37% (239 of 650) nonseminoma. The median age was 34 years (range 14-74). 26% (106 of 411) with seminoma and 15% (36 of 239) nonseminoma received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 43 months (range 0-267) postorchidectomy, relapse occurred in 10% (43 of 411) of seminoma and 18% (43 of 239) of nonseminoma. The two-year relapse-free survival was 92% (95% CI, 89 to 95) and 82% (95% CI, 78 to 87) in seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. All relapses (86 of 86) were detected at a routine surveillance visit; 98% (85 of 86) were asymptomatic and detected solely through imaging (62 of 86, 72%), tumor markers (6 of 86, 7%), or a combination (17 of 86, 20%). The most common relapse site was isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (53 of 86, 62%). No nonpulmonary visceral metastases occurred. At relapse, 98% (84 of 86) had International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) good prognosis; 2 of 86 intermediate prognosis (both nonseminoma). No deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of stage 1 testicular cancer, where national surveillance recommendations have been widely adopted, recurrences were detected at routine surveillance visits and, almost exclusively, asymptomatic with IGCCCG good-prognosis disease. This provides reassurance that active surveillance is safe.

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.

Outcomes for International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Groups in Contemporary First-line Combination Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVE: To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks. PATIENT SUMMARY: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting.

Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Targeted Therapy: An Observational Study from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between upfront CN and clinical outcomes in the setting of mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, we retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with de novo mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regressions adjusting for known prognostic factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified a total of 4639 eligible patients with mRCC. Among the 4202 patients treated with targeted therapy and 437 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2326 (55%) and 234 (54%) patients received upfront CN prior to treatment start. In multivariable analyses, CN was associated with significantly better OS in both the immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013) and the targeted therapy treatment (HR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78, p < 0.001) group. There was no difference in OS benefit of CN between the immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapy treatment groups (interaction p = 0.6). Limitations include selection of patients from large academic centers and the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront CN is associated with a significant OS benefit in selected patients treated by either immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy, and still has a role in selected patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Before effective systemic therapies were available for metastatic kidney cancer, surgical removal of the primary (kidney) tumor was the mainstay of treatment. The role of removing the primary tumor has recently been called into question given that more effective systemic therapies have become available. In this study, we find that removal of the primary kidney tumor still has a benefit for selected patients treated with highly effective modern systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes With Two Different Starting Doses of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus for Previously Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

Real-world clinical outcomes and cost estimates of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment: does sequencing of taxanes and androgen receptor-targeted agents matter?

INTRODUCTION: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator. RESULTS: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.

Patient-reported Outcomes from JAVELIN Bladder 100: Avelumab First-line Maintenance Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In JAVELIN Bladder 100, avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without disease progression with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized phase 3 trial (NCT02603432) was conducted in 700 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin. PROs were a secondary endpoint. INTERVENTION: Avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Symptom Index-18 (FBlSI-18) and EuroQol five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effect models. Time to deterioration (TTD; prespecified definition: a ≥3-point decrease from baseline in the FBlSI-18 disease-related symptoms-physical subscale for two consecutive assessments) was evaluated via Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Completion rates for scheduled on-treatment PRO assessments were >90% (overall and average per assessment). Results from descriptive analyses and mixed-effect or repeated-measures models of FBlSI-18 and EQ-5D-5L were similar between arms. TTD was also similar, both in the prespecified analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.77]) and in the post hoc analyses including off-treatment assessments and different event definitions. Limitations included the open-label design and limited numbers of evaluable patients at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of avelumab first-line maintenance to BSC in patients with aUC that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy prolonged OS, with a relatively minimal effect on quality of life. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial of people with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had benefited from first-line chemotherapy (ie, had stable disease or reduced tumor size), treatment with avelumab maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone improved survival significantly, without compromising quality of life, as reported by the patients themselves.

Modulation of Plasma Lipidomic Profiles in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer by Simvastatin.

Elevated circulating sphingolipids are associated with shorter overall survival and therapeutic resistance in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), suggesting that perturbations in sphingolipid metabolism promotes prostate cancer growth. This study assessed whether addition of simvastatin to standard treatment for mCRPC can modify a poor prognostic circulating lipidomic profile represented by a validated 3-lipid signature (3LS). Men with mCRPC (n = 27) who were not on a lipid-lowering agent, were given simvastatin for 12 weeks (40 mg orally, once daily) with commencement of standard treatment. Lipidomic profiling was performed on their plasma sampled at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Only 11 men had the poor prognostic 3LS at baseline, of whom five (45%) did not retain the 3LS after simvastatin treatment (expected conversion rate with standard treatment = 19%). At baseline, the plasma profiles of men with the 3LS displayed higher levels (p < 0.05) of sphingolipids (ceramides, hexosylceramides and sphingomyelins) than those of men without the 3LS. These plasma sphingolipids were reduced after statin treatment in men who lost the 3LS (mean decrease: 23−52%, p < 0.05), but not in men with persistent 3LS, and were independent of changes to plasma cholesterol, LDL-C or triacylglycerol. In conclusion, simvastatin in addition to standard treatment can modify the poor prognostic circulating lipidomic profile in mCRPC into a more favourable profile at twice the expected conversion rate.

Real-world first-line systemic therapy patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Introduction: Several systemic therapies have demonstrated a survival advantage in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Access to these medications varies significantly worldwide. In Australia until recently, patients must have received docetaxel first, unless unsuitable for chemotherapy, despite no evidence suggesting superiority over androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs). Our study investigated real-world systemic treatment patterns in Australian patients with mCRPC. Methods: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify mCRPC patients. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by first-line systemic therapies, were extracted. Comparisons between groups utilised Kruskal-Wallis tests and Chi-Square analyses. Time-to-event data were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analysed through Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: We identified 578 patients who received first-line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Enzalutamide (ENZ) was most commonly prescribed (n = 240, 41%), followed by docetaxel (DOC, n = 164, 28%) and abiraterone (AA, n = 100, 17%). Patients receiving ENZ or AA were older (79, 78.5 years respectively) compared with DOC (71 years, p = 0.001) and less likely to have ECOG performance status 0 (45%, 44%, 59% in ENZ, AA and DOC groups respectively p < 0.0001). Median TTF was significantly higher in those receiving ENZ (12.4 months) and AA (11.9 months) compared to DOC (8.3 months, p < 0.001). PSA50 response rates and OS were not statistically different. Time to developing CRPC > 12 months was independently associated with longer TTF (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.49, p = 0.002). Conclusion: In our real-world population, ENZ and AA were common first-line systemic therapy choices, particularly among older patients and those with poorer performance status. Patients receiving ENZ and AA demonstrated superior TTF compared to DOC, while OS was not statistically different. Our findings highlight the important role of ARSIs, given the variability of access worldwide.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Noninferiority Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of the Cabozantinib Tablet at 60 mg Per Day Compared with the Cabozantinib Capsule at 140 mg Per Day in Patients with Progressive, Metastatic Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

Background: Cabozantinib inhibits pathways involved in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Cabozantinib is approved as 140 mg/day in capsules for MTC and 60 mg/day in tablets for other solid tumors. This study compared the two doses in progressive metastatic MTC. Methods: In this Phase 4, randomized, double-blind noninferiority (NI) trial (NCT01896479), patients with progressive metastatic MTC were randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet or 140 mg/day capsules. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. NI would be concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval [CI] for the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was less than the NI margin, 1.58. The secondary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by BIRC per RECIST v1.1; additional end points included safety and pharmacokinetics. Results: At data cutoff (July 15, 2020), 247 patients were randomized to the 60 mg/day tablet arm (n = 123) and the 140 mg/day capsules arm (n = 124). NI was not met (median PFS 11.0 months vs. 13.9 months in the 60 and 140 mg/day arms [HR 1.24; CI 0.90-1.70; p = 0.19]). The ORR was 33% in both arms. Generally, adverse event (AE) incidence was lower in the 60 mg/day arm (Grade 3/4, 63% vs. 72%), as were dose reductions (69% vs. 81%) and treatment discontinuations due to AEs (23% vs. 36%). Initially, cabozantinib plasma concentrations were higher in the 140 mg/day arm but became similar between arms at later time points. Conclusions: PFS NI of the cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet vs. 140 mg/day capsules was not met. The 60 mg/day tablet had the same ORR and lower rates of AEs. Clinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01896479.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORRwk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORRwk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.

Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).

Beyond cabazitaxel: Late line treatments in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: A retrospective multicentre analysis.

AIMS: Multiple life-prolonging therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the optimal treatment strategy following progression through standard treatment with docetaxel, androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) and cabazitaxel, remains unclear. We aimed to describe treatment patterns in men with mCRPC following progression on standard treatments and determine whether subsequent treatment choice impacts overall survival. METHODS: Clinicopathologic and treatment data were extracted from the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) for patients who had received docetaxel, ARSIs and cabazitaxel in any order. Data were analyzed to compare groups that did versus did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Treatment sequences, median duration of treatment, and median overall survival (mOS) were reported for each treatment group. RESULTS: Ninety-eight eligible patients were identified, with 51 receiving subsequent systemic therapy. Those who received further treatment were younger (68 vs. 71 years, p < .01) but did not have any other differences in clinicopathologic features compared to those who received no further treatment. Patients who received upfront docetaxel were more likely to proceed to subsequent treatment (p = .02). Subsequent systemic therapies varied, the most common being carboplatin-based regimens (n = 13, 25.5%) and many patients were rechallenged with ARSI (n = 10, 19.6%) or docetaxel (n = 6, 11.8%). There was no difference in mOS according to subsequent systemic therapy (p = .09). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter analysis demonstrates the variation in treatment sequences used for mCRPC in the real-world setting. In the absence of high quality, prospective evidence, our results suggest that subsequent treatment choice does not influence survival outcomes and the optimal choice is guided by individual patient and disease-related factors.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an International, Randomized Phase III Trial Led by ANZUP.

PURPOSE: We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS: HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). RESULTS: HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Prostate CancerPatients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, regardless of homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, received either abiraterone and olaparib or abiraterone and placebo in the first-line setting. Imaging-based progression-free survival was 24.8 months for patients treated with abiraterone and olaparib versus 16.6 months for those receiving abiraterone alone.