FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab or Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Ineligible for Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to atezolizumab and pembrolizumab in April and May 2017, respectively, for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. These approvals were based on efficacy and safety data demonstrated in the two single-arm trials, IMvigor210 (atezolizumab) and KEYNOTE-052 (pembrolizumab). The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.2%-32.2%) in patients receiving atezolizumab and 28.6% (95% CI: 24.1%-33.5%) in patients receiving pembrolizumab. The median duration of response was not reached in either study and responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 status. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with approved agents targeting PD-1/PD-L1. Two ongoing trials (IMvigor130 and KEYNOTE-361) are verifying benefit of these drugs. Based on concerning preliminary reports from these trials, FDA revised the indications for both agents in cisplatin-ineligible patients. Both drugs are now indicated for patients not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy or not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors/infiltrating immune cells express a high level of PD-L1. The indications for atezolizumab and pembrolizumab in patients who have received prior platinum-based therapy have not been changed. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the accelerated approval of both agents and the subsequent revision of the indications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approvals of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma represent the first approved therapies for this patient population. These approvals were based on single-arm trials demonstrating reasonable objective response rates and favorable durations of response with an acceptable toxicity profile compared with available non-cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. However, based on concerning preliminary reports from two ongoing phase III trials, the FDA revised the indication for both agents in cisplatin-ineligible patients. Both are now indicated either for patients not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy or not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors have high expression of PD-L1.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Progressive Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma after Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy.

Until recently in the United States, no products were approved for second-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved atezolizumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blocking antibody and represents the first approved product directed against PD-L1. This accelerated approval was based on results of a single-arm trial in 310 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had disease progression after prior platinum-containing chemotherapy. Patients received atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Key efficacy measures were objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by Independent Review per RECIST 1.1, and duration of response (DoR). With a median follow-up of 14.4 months, confirmed ORR was 14.8% (95% CI: 11.1, 19.3) in all treated patients. Median DoR was not reached and response durations ranged from 2.1+ to 13.8+ months. Of the 46 responders, 37 patients had an ongoing response for ≥ 6 months. The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, pyrexia, and constipation. Infection and immune-related adverse events also occurred, including pneumonitis, hepatitis, colitis, endocrine disorders, and rashes. Overall, the benefit-risk assessment was favorable to support accelerated approval. The observed clinical benefits need to be verified in confirmatory trial(s). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This accelerated approval of atezolizumab for second-line use in advanced urothelial carcinoma provides patients with an effective, novel treatment option for the management of their disease. This represents the first immunotherapy approved in this disease setting.

Phase II trial of docetaxel, bevacizumab, lenalidomide and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and clinical efficacy of two anti-angiogenic agents, bevacizumab and lenalidomide, with docetaxel and prednisone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in this open-label, phase II study of lenalidomide with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) ) and prednisone (10 mg daily). Docetaxel and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of a 3-week treatment cycle. To establish safety, lenalidomide dosing in this combination was escalated in a conventional 3 + 3 design (15, 20 and 25 mg daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week off). Patients received supportive measures including prophylactic pegfilgrastim and enoxaparin. The primary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients enrolled in this trial. Toxicities were manageable with most common adverse events (AEs) being haematological, and were ascertained by weekly blood counts. Twenty-nine patients (46%) had grade 4 neutropenia, 20 (32%) had grade 3 anaemia and seven (11%) had grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Despite frequent neutropenia, serious infections were rare. Other common non-haematological grade 3 AEs included fatigue (10%) and diarrhoea (10%). Grade 2 AEs in >10% of patients included anorexia, weight loss, constipation, osteonecrosis of the jaw, rash and dyspnoea. Of 61 evaluable patients, 57 (93%), 55 (90%) and 33 (54%) had PSA declines of >30, >50 and >90%, respectively. Of the 29 evaluable patients, 24 (86%) had a confirmed radiographic partial response. The median times to progression and overall survival were 18.2 and 24.6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate supportive measures, combination angiogenesis inhibition can be safely administered and potentially provide clinical benefit. These hypothesis-generating data would require randomized trials to confirm the findings.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Patients With Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide. On September 10, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Enzalutamide was initially approved in 2012 for use in patients with mCRPC who had previously received docetaxel. The current approval was based on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 1,717 asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients were assigned to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo orally once daily. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), which was assessed by independent central radiology review. At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in OS was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.84). The median OS was 32.4 and 30.2 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. A statistically significant prolongation of rPFS was observed in patients in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.21). In addition, the time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), with median times of 28.0 and 10.8 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. The safety profile was similar to that previously reported for enzalutamide. Adverse reactions of interest included seizure, hypertension, and falls. Enzalutamide should be discontinued if a seizure occurs during treatment. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide.

Under-representation of racial minorities in prostate cancer studies submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration to support potential marketing approval, 1993-2013.

BACKGROUND: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new drugs depends on results from clinical trials that must be generalized to the US population. However, racial minorities are frequently under-represented in clinical studies. The enrollment of racial minorities was compared in key clinical studies submitted to the FDA in the last 10 years in support of potential marketing approval for prostate cancer (PCa) prevention or treatment. METHODS: Patient demographic data were obtained from archival data sets of large registration trials submitted to the FDA to support proposed PCa indications. Six countries/regions were analyzed: the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Eastern Europe. Background racial demographics were collected from national census data. RESULTS: Seventeen key PCa clinical trials were analyzed. These trials were conducted in the past 20 years, comprising 39,574 patients with known racial information. Most patients were enrolled in the United States, but there appeared to be a trend toward increased non-US enrollment over time. In all countries, racial minorities were generally under-represented. There was no significant improvement in racial minority enrollment over time. The United States enrolled the largest nonwhite population (7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 20 years, racial minorities were consistently under-represented in key PCa trials. There is a need for effective measures that will improve enrollment of racial minorities. With increased global enrollment, drug developers should aim to recruit a patient population that resembles the racial demographics of the patient population to which drug use will be generalized upon approval.

Targeting the regulation of androgen receptor signaling by the heat shock protein 90 cochaperone FKBP52 in prostate cancer cells.

Drugs that target novel surfaces on the androgen receptor (AR) and/or novel AR regulatory mechanisms are promising alternatives for the treatment of castrate-resistant prostate cancer. The 52 kDa FK506 binding protein (FKBP52) is an important positive regulator of AR in cellular and whole animal models and represents an attractive target for the treatment of prostate cancer. We used a modified receptor-mediated reporter assay in yeast to screen a diversified natural compound library for inhibitors of FKBP52-enhanced AR function. The lead compound, termed MJC13, inhibits AR function by preventing hormone-dependent dissociation of the Hsp90-FKBP52-AR complex, which results in less hormone-bound receptor in the nucleus. Assays in early and late stage human prostate cancer cells demonstrated that MJC13 inhibits AR-dependent gene expression and androgen-stimulated prostate cancer cell proliferation.

Comparison of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Processes for Marketing Applications Between the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) began collaboration on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections for marketing applications since 2009. The main characteristics of the GCP inspection processes between FDA and EMA were never evaluated. This is the first analysis comparing the GCP inspection processes between the two agencies. METHODS: We examined and analyzed the key characteristics of the GCP inspection processes, including the geographical distribution, inspection types and timelines from application submission to final inspection reporting for marketing applications from September 2009 through December 2015. RESULTS: Fifty-five shared applications were included for analysis. For these applications, a total of 433 GCP inspections were conducted in 47 countries. Most clinical investigator (CI) inspections were conducted in regions outside of each agency's own regulatory jurisdiction, while most sponsor/contract research organization (CRO) inspections were conducted in the U.S. by both agencies. Twenty-eight shared applications included common sites inspected by both agencies. There were 15 joint inspections conducted for seven of these applications and the remaining applications had common sites inspected by both agencies at separate times. Of the joint inspections, 73% were conducted in the U.S and 20% in the E.U. The median time from submission of an application to generation of final inspection reports was 232 days for FDA and 204 days for EMA, with no significant differences noted among applications with and without common sites. CONCLUSION: The inspection processes and timelines between the two agencies were similar, providing support for continued FDA-EMA GCP collaboration.

Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have collaborated in good clinical practice (GCP) inspections since September 2009. The two agencies operate under different regulatory frameworks for GCP oversight. No systematic assessments of GCP inspection findings have been reported. METHODS: We identified common inspections of clinical investigators, sponsors, and contract research organizations conducted by both agencies in support of marketing applications that had the same trial data submitted between 2009 and 2015. We grouped inspection findings into deficiency areas. We reviewed and compared these findings and calculated concordance rate for each deficiency area. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical investigator sites and 23 sponsors/contract research organizations were inspected by both agencies in support of 31 marketing applications during this period. For FDA, the most common GCP findings were deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management issues for sponsor/contract research organization inspections. For EMA, deficiencies related to Documentation (including Trial Master File) were the most common findings for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections. There was high concordance, of approximately 90%, for deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management for sponsor/contract research organization inspections between the two agencies. There was a concordance rate of about 70% for Documentation deficiencies for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization GCP inspections. CONCLUSION: GCP inspection findings from 49 common clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections were comparable, providing support for continued FDA-EMA GCP collaboration.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab Phase I Expansion Study in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Refractory to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) that progressed on checkpoint inhibition (CPI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase I expansion cohort of patients with mUC who received prior CPI was treated with cabozantinib 40 mg/day and nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary goal was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v.1.1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 30 patients enrolled were evaluable for efficacy. Median follow-up was 22.2 months. Most patients (86.7%) received prior chemotherapy and all patients received prior CPI (median seven cycles). ORR was 16.0%, with one complete response and three partial responses (PR). Among 4 responders, 2 were primary refractory, 1 had a PR, and 1 had stable disease on prior CPI. Median DoR was 33.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.7-33.5], median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.5), and median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 5.8-19.5). CaboNivo decreased immunosuppressive subsets such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and increased potential antitumor immune subsets such as nonclassical monocytes and effector T cells. A lower percentage of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSC) and polymorphonuclear MDSCs, lower CTLA-4 and TIM-3 expression on Tregs, and higher effector CD4+ T cells at baseline were associated with better PFS and/or OS. CONCLUSIONS: CaboNivo was clinically active, well tolerated, and favorably modulated peripheral blood immune subsets in patients with mUC refractory to CPI.

Higher incidence of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ) in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treated with anti-angiogenic agents.

ONJ is an important toxicity in cancer patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy. Here we report a higher than usual incidence of ONJ, 11 of 60 (18.3%, 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 9%-28%) patients enrolled in a phase II clinical trial combining bevacizumab, docetaxel, thalidomide, and prednisone (ATTP) in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The use of bisphosphonates was allowed at study entry. Our study suggests that anti-angiogenic and chemotherapy agents can predispose to the development of ONJ in men with mCRPC on zoledronic acid. Imaging modalities, such as bone scans, may be useful in following the clinical course of patients who develop ONJ.

Analysis of the Association Between Adverse Events and Outcome in Patients Receiving a Programmed Death Protein 1 or Programmed Death Ligand 1 Antibody.

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship among tumor response rate, overall survival, and the development of related adverse events of special interest (AESIs) or related immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) in patients with urothelial cancer treated with anti-programmed death protein 1 or ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/L1) antibodies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined seven trials in 1,747 patients with metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer that led to approval of an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody. Five trials enrolled patients who had received prior platinum-based therapy, and two enrolled patients who were cisplatin ineligible. The data sets were searched for AESIs, related AESIs, imAEs, and related imAEs. The relationship to study drug was determined by the investigator. ImAEs were defined as AESIs treated with topical or systemic corticosteroids. RESULTS: In these exploratory analyses, a related AESI was reported in 64% of responding patients and in 34% of patients who did not respond to the anti-PD-1/L1 antibody, whereas a related imAE occurred in 28% and 12% of patients who did and did not respond to study drug, respectively. In a responder analysis, an increase in overall survival was seen in patients with related AESIs compared with those with no related AESIs (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.52). Fifty-seven percent of responding patients with a related AESI reported the AESI before documentation of response. CONCLUSION: Patients who responded to treatment with an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody were more likely to report a related AESI or related imAE. This relationship did not seem to be due to the increased duration of exposure in responding patients. Systemic corticosteroid use did not appear to affect the duration of response.

Liposomal doxorubicin in combination with bortezomib for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: On May 17, 2007, doxorubicin HCl liposome injection (Doxil) in combination with bortezomib (Velcade) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least one prior therapy that has not included bortezomib. Liposomal doxorubicin's efficacy and safety were demonstrated in a phase III, randomized, multicenter, international trial comparing the combination of this agent plus bortezomib vs bortezomib alone in multiple myeloma patients who had not previously received bortezomib and had received at least one prior therapy. Here we summarize the FDA review of the data that support this approval. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESULTS: An interim analysis of time to disease progression (TTP), the primary endpoint, was conducted after 249 TTP events in this study that randomized 324 patients to liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib treatment and 322 patients to bortezomib monotherapy. Time to progression was significantly prolonged in the combination arm (median TTP = 9.3 months) compared with bortezomib monotherapy (median TTP = 6.5 months), P < .0001 (log-rank test); hazard ratio = 0.55 (95% confidence interval = 0.43-0.71). The response rates were similar between the two arms and not statistically different; however, among responding patients, the median duration of response was longer with the combination--10.2 months compared to 7.0 months in the monotherapy arm. Adverse reactions occurred more frequently with the combination therapy. As compared to the monotherapy, frequent grade 3/4 adverse reactions with the combination were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal doxorubicin received FDA approval for use in combination with bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma who have not previously received bortezomib and have received at least one prior therapy.

Food and Drug Administration process for development and approval of drugs and radiopharmaceuticals: treatments in urologic oncology.

Regulatory advice and assessment play an important role in the successful development of new drugs and radiopharmaceuticals for the treatment of urologic malignancies. Cooperation between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry has led to the approval of more than 20 new urologic oncology products in the last 2 decades. Despite these advances, more effective treatments need to be developed and approved for the treatment of urologic malignancies. This review provides general information about the FDA's role in the development of investigational new drugs, with an emphasis on the regulatory process and the requirements for marketing approval. In addition, this review summarizes the products for the treatment of urologic malignancies that were approved by the FDA in the last 30 years and the key issues concerning urologic oncology products that were discussed publicly at Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee meetings in the past 10 years.

FDA approval summary: vemurafenib for treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600E mutation.

On August 17, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vemurafenib tablets (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc.) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAF(V600E) mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) was approved concurrently. An international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in 675 previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma allocated 337 patients to receive vemurafenib, 960 mg orally twice daily, and 338 patients to receive dacarbazine, 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks. Overall survival was significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib [HR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.59; P < 0.0001]. Progression-free survival was also significantly improved in patients receiving vemurafenib (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.33; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 48.4% and 5.5% in the vemurafenib and dacarbazine arms, respectively. The most common adverse reactions (≥30%) in patients treated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, alopecia, fatigue, photosensitivity reaction, and nausea. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas or keratoacanthomas were detected in approximately 24% of patients treated with vemurafenib. Other adverse reactions included hypersensitivity, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, uveitis, QT prolongation, and liver enzyme laboratory abnormalities.