Apalutamide efficacy, safety and wellbeing in older patients with advanced prostate cancer from Phase 3 randomised clinical studies TITAN and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcomes in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant PC (nmCRPC) in the Phase 3 randomised TITAN and SPARTAN studies, respectively, and maintained health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Apalutamide treatment effect by patient age requires assessment. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis assessed patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (525 TITAN and 806 SPARTAN) or placebo (527 TITAN and 401 SPARTAN) with ongoing ADT, stratified by age groups. Prostate-specific antigen declines, radiographic progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, overall survival (OS), HRQoL and safety were assessed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional-hazards model and mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) generally favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone across all endpoints regardless of age; e.g., OS values were 0.57 (0.40-0.80), 0.70 (0.54-0.91) and 0.74 (0.40-1.39) (TITAN) and 0.39 (0.19-0.78), 0.89 (0.69-1.16) and 0.81 (0.58-1.15) (SPARTAN) in patients aged <65, 65-79 and ≥80 years. Regardless of age, apalutamide also maintained HRQoL and was tolerated well with a potential trend in rates of adverse events increasing with age. Limitations include post-hoc nature and variability in sample size of age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT was an effective and well-tolerated option maintaining HRQoL in patients with mCSPC and nmCRPC regardless of age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: TITAN (NCT02489318); SPARTAN (NCT01946204).

Extended Safety and Tolerability of Darolutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Adverse Event Time Course in ARAMIS.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are usually asymptomatic and seek treatments that improve survival but have a low risk of adverse events. Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi), significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo in ARAMIS. We assessed the extended safety and tolerability of darolutamide and the time-course profile of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to ARis and androgen-suppressive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554). After trial unblinding, patients could receive open-label darolutamide. Tolerability and TEAEs were assessed every 16 weeks. Time interval-specific new and cumulative event rates were determined during the first 24 months of the double-blind period. RESULTS: Darolutamide remained well tolerated during the double-blind and open-label periods, with 98.8% of patients receiving the full planned dose. The incidence of TEAEs of interest in the darolutamide group was low and ≤2% different from that in the placebo group, except for fatigue. When incidences were adjusted for exposure time, there were minimal differences between the darolutamide double-blind and double-blind plus open-label periods. The rate of initial onset and cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs and serious TEAEs were similar for darolutamide and placebo groups over 24 months. CONCLUSION: Extended treatment with darolutamide was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Most ARi-associated and androgen-suppressive treatment-related TEAEs occurred at low incidences with darolutamide, were similar to placebo, and showed minimal increase over time with continued treatment. TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02200614.

Continuous enzalutamide after progression of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel (PRESIDE): an international, randomised, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: Although androgen deprivation therapy is typically given long-term for men with metastatic prostate cancer, second-generation hormone therapies are generally discontinued before the subsequent line of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of continuing enzalutamide after progression in controlling metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel and prednisolone. METHODS: PRESIDE was a two-period, multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study done at 123 sites in Europe (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK). Patients were eligible for period 1 (P1) of the study if they had histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features, serum testosterone concentrations of 1·73 nmol/L or less, and had progressed during androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist or after bilateral orchiectomy. In P1, patients received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg per day orally. At week 13, patients were assessed for either radiographic or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (25% or more increase and 2 ng/mL or more above nadir). Patients who showed any decline in PSA at week 13 and subsequently progressed (radiographic progression, PSA progression, or both) were screened and enrolled in period 2 (P2), during which eligible patients were treated with up to ten cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and oral prednisolone 10 mg/day, and randomly assigned (1:1) to oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or oral placebo. Patients were stratified by type of disease progression. The block size was four and the overall number of blocks was 400. Patients, investigators, and study organisers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients in P2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02288247, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Feb 15, 2016, 816 patients were screened for P1 of the study. 688 patients were enrolled in P1 and 687 received open-label enzalutamide. In P2, 271 patients were randomly assigned at 73 sites to receive enzalutamide (n=136) or placebo (n=135). The data cutoff for analysis was April 30, 2020. Median progression-free survival with enzalutamide was 9·5 months (95% CI 8·3-10·9) versus 8·3 months (6·3-8·7) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·53-0·96]; p=0·027). The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (17 [13%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 12 [9%] of 135 patients in the placebo group) and asthenia (ten [7%] vs six [4%]). The most common grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in P2 was neutropenia (23 [17%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 28 [21%] of 135 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 67 (49%) of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group and 52 (39%) of 135 patients in the placebo group. Two (15%) of 13 deaths in the enzalutamide group (caused by septic shock and haematuria) and one (14%) of seven deaths in the placebo group (caused by actue kidney injury) were associated with docetaxel. INTERPRETATION: PRESIDE met its primary endpoint and showed that continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy delayed time to progression compared with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy alone, supporting the hypothesis that enzalutamide maintenance could control persistent androgen-dependent clones in men with mCRPC who progress after treatment with enzalutamide alone. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma and Pfizer.

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Abiraterone plus Prednisone in Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, a drug that blocks endogenous androgen synthesis, plus prednisone is indicated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the clinical benefit of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1199 patients to receive either androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily, given once daily as four 250-mg tablets) plus prednisone (5 mg daily) (the abiraterone group) or androgen-deprivation therapy plus dual placebos (the placebo group). The two primary end points were overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 30.4 months at a planned interim analysis (after 406 patients had died), the median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone group than in the placebo group (not reached vs. 34.7 months) (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median length of radiographic progression-free survival was 33.0 months in the abiraterone group and 14.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55; P<0.001). Significantly better outcomes in all secondary end points were observed in the abiraterone group, including the time until pain progression, next subsequent therapy for prostate cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen progression (P<0.001 for all comparisons), along with next symptomatic skeletal events (P=0.009). These findings led to the unanimous recommendation by the independent data and safety monitoring committee that the trial be unblinded and crossover be allowed for patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone. Rates of grade 3 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher in the abiraterone group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; LATITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01715285 .).

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the interim analyses of the LATITUDE study, the addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) led to a significant improvement in overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Here, we present long-term survival outcomes and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and ADT from the final analysis of the LATITUDE study. METHODS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 235 sites in 34 countries. Eligible patients (men aged ≥18 years) had newly diagnosed, histologically or cytologically confirmed prostate cancer with metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and at least two of the three high-risk prognostic factors (Gleason score of ≥8, presence of three or more lesions on bone scan, or presence of measurable visceral metastasis except lymph node metastasis). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) once daily orally plus prednisone (5 mg) once daily orally and ADT (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group) or matching placebos plus ADT (placebo group); each treatment cycle was 28 days. Randomisation was done by a centralised interactive web response system in a country-by-country scheme using permuted block randomisation, stratified by presence of visceral disease and ECOG performance status. The coprimary endpoint of overall survival was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 1209 patients were screened, of whom ten were ineligible because of study site violations. 1199 patients were randomly assigned to either the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (n=597) or placebo group (n=602). After the results of the first interim analysis (cutoff date Oct 31, 2016), the study was unmasked to patients and investigators, and patients in the placebo group were allowed to cross over to receive abiraterone acetate and prednisone plus ADT treatment as per a protocol amendment (Feb 15, 2017) in an open-label extension phase of the study (up to 18 months from the protocol amendment). This final analysis (data cutoff Aug 15, 2018) was done after a median follow-up of 51·8 months (IQR 47·2-57·0) and 618 deaths (275 [46%] of 597 in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and 343 [57%] of 602 in the placebo group). Overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (median 53·3 months [95% CI 48·2-not reached]) than in the placebo group (36·5 months [33·5-40·0]), with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (95% CI 0·56-0·78; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (125 [21%] in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group vs 60 [10%] in the placebo group vs three [4%] in the 72 patients who crossed over from placebo to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone) and hypokalaemia (70 [12%] vs ten [2%] vs two [3%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 192 (32%) of 597 patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group, 151 (25%) of 602 in the placebo group, and four (6%) of 72 in the crossover group. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event was hypokalaemia (four [1%] patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and none in the other groups). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (<1%) patients each in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (gastric ulcer perforation, sudden death, and cerebrovascular accident) and the placebo group (sudden death, cerebrovascular accident, and pneumonia), with none in the crossover group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with ADT was associated with significantly longer overall survival than placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk mCSPC and had a manageable safety profile. These findings support the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as a standard of care in patients with high-risk mCSPC. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (SYNERGY trial): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Clusterin is a chaperone protein associated with treatment resistance and upregulated by apoptotic stressors such as chemotherapy. Custirsen is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits clusterin production. The aim of the SYNERGY trial was to investigate the effect of custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone on overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: SYNERGY was a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial set at 134 study centres in 12 countries. Patients were eligible for participation if they had: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and had received no previous chemotherapy; prostate-specific antigen greater than 5 ng/mL; and a Karnofsky performance score of 70% or higher. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 centrally to either the docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen combination or docetaxel and prednisone alone. Patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was stratified by opioid use for cancer-related pain and radiographic evidence of progression. All patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously with 5 mg of prednisone orally twice daily. Patients assigned docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen received weekly doses of custirsen 640 mg intravenously after three loading doses of 640 mg. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one study dose were included in the safety analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01188187. The trial is completed and final analyses are reported here. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2010, and Nov 7, 2012, 1022 patients were enrolled to the trial, of whom 510 were assigned docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen and 512 were allocated docetaxel and prednisone. No difference in overall survival was recorded between the two groups (median survival 23·4 months [95% CI 20·9-24·8] with docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen vs 22·0 months [19·5-24·0] with docetaxel and prednisone; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·79-1·10; p=0·415). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the docetaxel, prednisone and custirsen group (n=501) compared with the docetaxel and prednisone alone group (n=499) were neutropenia (grade 3, 63 [13%] vs 28 [6%]; grade 4, 98 [20%] vs 77 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (grade 3, 52 [10%] vs 31 [6%]; grade 4, four [1%] vs two [<1%]), and fatigue (grade 3, 53 [11%] vs 41 [8%]; grade 4, three [1%] vs one [<1%]). One or more serious adverse events were reported for 214 (43%) of 501 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen and 181 (36%) of 499 receiving docetaxel and prednisone alone. Adverse events were attributable to 23 (5%) deaths in the docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen group and 24 (5%) deaths in the docetaxel and prednisone alone group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of custirsen to first-line docetaxel and prednisone was reasonably well tolerated, but overall survival was not significantly longer for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with this combination, compared with patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone alone. FUNDING: OncoGenex Technologies.

Ten Years of Complete Remission of Pulmonary Metastasis after Post-Cystectomy Palliative Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Chemotherapy with Gefitinib for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Case Report.

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is considered one of the most lethal malignancies with high metastatic potential. Usually, metastatic bladder cancer carries worse prognosis with a median survival rate of approximately 6 months, which can be prolonged for up to 14 months with palliative systemic chemotherapy. We present the case of a 61-year-old male patient diagnosed with localized MIBC 10 years ago. He underwent nerve-sparing radical cystectomy with ileal neobladder, but developed pulmonary metastatic disease 7 months postoperatively. Six cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin combination chemotherapy with an addition of gefitinib as daily oral medication were administered within a randomized phase II clinical trial; this resulted in complete remission of the pulmonary metastases. Until now, the patient is still on gefitinib daily without any side effects. Although, the addition of gefitinib to standard systemic chemotherapy has not been shown to improve the survival in metastatic urothelial cancer, this case represents a very pleasant albeit uncommon long-term outcome.

Prospective randomized double-blind multicentre phase II study comparing gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus placebo in locally advanced and/or metastasized urothelial cancer: SUSE (AUO-AB 31/05).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in combination with sorafenib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized phase II trial. Its primary aim was to show an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.5 months by adding sorafenib to conventional chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The patients included in the trial had histologically confirmed locally advanced and/or metastatic urothelial cancer of the bladder or upper urinary tract. Chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1250 mg/qm on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/qm on day 1) repeated every 21 days, was administered to all patients in a double-blind randomization of additional sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) vs placebo (two tablets twice daily) on days 3-21. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity, the maximum number of cycles was limited to eight. The response assessment was repeated after every two cycles. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and October 2010, 98 of 132 planned patients were recruited. Nine patients were ineligible. The final analysis included 40 patients in the sorafenib and 49 patients in the placebo arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms concerning ORR (sorafenib: complete response [CR] 12.5%, partial response [PR] 40%; placebo: CR 12%, PR 35%), median PFS (sorafenib: 6.3 months, placebo: 6.1 months) or OS (sorafenib: 11.3 months, placebo: 10.6 months). Toxicity was moderately higher in the sorafenib arm. Diarrrhoea occurred significantly more often in the sorafenib arm and hand-foot syndrome occurred only in the sorafenib arm. The study was closed prematurely because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy showed acceptable toxicity, the trial failed to show a 4.5 months improvement in PFS.

Randomized Phase II Cabazitaxel Dose Individualization and Neutropenia Prevention Trial in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is ongoing controversy about the recommended dose of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II open-label, randomized, parallel-group study compared 3-weekly cabazitaxel at 25 mg/m2 (conventional arm A) with cabazitaxel therapeutic drug monitoring (experimental arm B) in mCRPC. The primary objective was to improve the clinical feasibility rate (CFR), defined as the absence of grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, any thrombocytopenia with bleeding, febrile neutropenia, severe nonhematologic toxicity, withdrawal for cabazitaxel-related toxicity, or death. A total of 60 patients had to be randomized to detect a difference in CFR of 35% (power 80%, two-sided alpha 10%). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were randomized to arm A and 33 patients to arm B. CFR was 69.4% in arm A and 64.3% in arm B (P = 0.79). Week-12 PSA response was 38.5% in both arms. A radiological response by RECIST v.1.1 was seen in 3 (9.7%) patients in arm A versus 6 (23.1%) patients in arm B (P = 0.28), disease progression was higher in arm A compared with arm B (61.3% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.05). Median progression-free survival was longer in arm B compared with arm A (9.5 vs. 4.4 months; HR = 0.46; P = 0.005). Median overall survival was higher in arm B compared with arm A (16.2 vs. 7.3 months; HR = 0.33; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC is feasible and improves clinical outcome due to individual dose escalations in 55% of patients.

Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable. Objective: To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications. Results: Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

Promiscuous survivin peptide induces robust CD4+ T-cell responses in the majority of vaccinated cancer patients.

CD4(+) T cells have been shown to be crucial for the induction and maintenance of cytotoxic T cell responses and to be also capable of mediating direct tumor rejection. Therefore, the anticancer therapeutic efficacy of peptide-based vaccines may be improved by addition of HLA class II epitopes to stimulate T helper cells. Survivin is an apoptosis inhibiting protein frequently overexpressed in tumors. Here we describe the first immunological evaluation of a survivin-derived CD4(+) T cell epitope in a multipeptide immunotherapy trial for prostate carcinoma patients. The survivin peptide is promiscuously presented by several human HLA-DRB1 molecules and, most importantly, is naturally processed by dendritic cells. In vaccinated patients, it was able to induce frequent, robust and multifunctional CD4(+) T cell responses, as monitored by IFN-γ ELISPOT and intracellular cytokine staining. Thus, this HLA-DR restricted epitope is broadly immunogenic and should be valuable for stimulating T helper cells in patients suffering from a wide range of tumors.

Impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer and visceral metastases over four years of follow-up: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the LATITUDE study.

BACKGROUND: A post-hoc analysis of the phase-3 LATITUDE study assessed the impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P) on overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and visceral metastases (VM). METHODS: Newly diagnosed mCSPC patients were randomized (1:1) to AA+P and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or placebo+ADT. Patients with VM in liver or lungs with or without other soft tissue and bone metastases (based on CT/MRI) at baseline were analyzed, after 51.8 months' median follow-up. Co-primary endpoints, OS and rPFS, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 1199 patients enrolled, 228 (19%) had VM at baseline (114 each in AA+P and placebo groups), of which 53 (23.2%; AA+P = 29, Placebo = 24) had liver metastases and 117 (51.3%; AA+P = 60, Placebo = 57) had lung metastases. In patients with VM, treatment with AA+P versus placebo showed an improvement in OS (median 55.4 vs 33.0 months; HR = 0.582; 95%CI = 0.406-0.835;P = 0.0029) and rPFS (median 30.7 vs 18.3 months; HR = 0.527; 95%CI = 0.366-0.759;P = 0.0005), comparable to that of patients without VM. AA+P versus placebo in lung metastases patients was associated with greater improvement in OS (HR = 0.60; 95%CI = 0.35-1.04;P = 0.0678) than in liver metastases patients (HR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.41-1.66;P = 0.5814). AA+P versus placebo showed improvement in rPFS in lung metastases patients (HR = 0.50; 95%CI = 0.29-0.89;P = 0.0157), but not in liver metastases patients (HR = 1.05; 95%CI = 0.53-2.09; P = 0.8970). CONCLUSION: AA+P treatment improved both rPFS and OS in men with mCSPC and visceral disease, especially those with lung metastases. Men with liver metastases had a poorer prognosis and their optimal treatment remains to be defined. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285.

LHRH sparing therapy in patients with chemotherapy-naïve, mCRPC treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone: results of the randomized phase II SPARE trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefit of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) continuation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains controversial, clinical evidence is lacking. Recent results indicated that treatment with abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone (P) further suppresses serum testosterone levels over ADT alone, suggesting that continuation of ADT in the treatment of mCRPC may not be necessary. METHODS: In this exploratory phase 2 study, mCRPC patients were randomized with a 1:1 ratio to receive either continued ADT plus AA + P (Arm A) or AA + P alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was the rate of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) at month 12. Secondary endpoints included PSA-response rate, objective response, time to PSA progression and safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were equally randomized between the two study arms. Median testosterone-levels remained below castrate-levels throughout treatment in all patients. According to the intention-to-treat analysis the rPFS rate was 0.84 in Arm A and 0.89 in Arm B. Moderate and severe treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 72% of the patients in Arm A and for 85% of the patients in Arm B. CONCLUSIONS: AA + P treatment without ADT may be effective in mCRPC patients and ADT may not be necessary in patients receiving AA + P.

Olaparib tolerability and common adverse-event management in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Further analyses from the PROfound study.

BACKGROUND: Based on PROfound, olaparib is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following disease progression on at least enzalutamide or abiraterone and who carry relevant alterations in DNA repair genes. To facilitate continued olaparib treatment as long as the patient derives benefit, we describe further safety assessments from PROfound focusing on the four most common adverse events (AEs) and events of special interest. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or control (enzalutamide or abiraterone) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was assessed through AE reporting and laboratory assessments. Safety data were also collected from all patients in the control group who experienced radiographic disease progression and subsequently crossed over to olaparib treatment. RESULTS: 256 patients received olaparib and 130 control. Incidence rates for the four most commonly occurring AEs in the olaparib group (all-causality) were anaemia 50%, nausea 43%, fatigue/asthenia 42% and decreased appetite 31%. All were mostly Grade 1 and 2 and all peaked within the first 2 months of treatment as the events were managed where appropriate, primarily with dose interruptions or dose reductions. The extent of bone metastases at baseline or prior taxane use was not associated with the rate of anaemia. Pneumonitis was reported in 2% and 1.5% of patients in the olaparib and control groups, respectively, and one patient (0.4%) in the olaparib group experienced an event of MDS/AML after a 30-day follow-up period. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8% of olaparib and 3% of control patients. CONCLUSIONS: The four most common AEs observed in PROfound were generally manageable without the need for treatment discontinuation, allowing patients to remain on treatment for as long as they were deriving clinical benefit. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration number: NCT02987543.

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy, Docetaxel, and Prednisone vs Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The VIABLE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. RESULTS: A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111577.

Real-World Safety and Efficacy Outcomes with Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone or Prednisolone as the First- or Second-Line Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Data from the Prostate Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite standard-of-care androgen-deprivation therapy and an increasing number of treatment options, the mortality rate for prostate cancer remains high. Progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) necessitates additional treatments. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) prolongs survival in chemotherapy-naive and docetaxel-experienced patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of AAP as first-line and second-line [post-docetaxel only (AAP-PD)] treatment in patients with mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) was a prospective, international, observational study of patients with mCRPC in routine clinical practice. Men aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed mCRPC were included. Baseline characteristics, safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent severe adverse events), and efficacy [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] were analyzed. RESULTS: At baseline, patients who received first-line AAP (n = 754) were generally older than patients who received AAP-PD (n = 354); median age was 76 years and 70 years, respectively. However, the rate of visceral metastasis was higher in the AAP-PD cohort than in the AAP cohort (17.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively). Demographics and disease characteristics of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease were similar to those of the overall registry population. Efficacy outcomes were similar for all patients, regardless of the line of AAP therapy. For first-line AAP and AAP-PD, respectively, the median PFS was 8.9 and 5.8 months for all patients and 9.1 and 6.0 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities; median OS was 27.1 and 23.4 months for all patients, and 27.4 and 23.1 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. There were no unexpected adverse events in any patient subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data complement the findings from randomized controlled trials, indicating that first- and second-line AAP is well tolerated and effective in patients with mCRPC, including those with underlying CV comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02236637, registered 8 September 2014.

Efficacy and Safety of Cabazitaxel Versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Older Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in the CARD Study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide). OBJECTIVE: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age.

The prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urine test in men with previous negative biopsies: does free-to-total prostate-specific antigen ratio influence the performance of the PCA3 score in predicting positive biopsies?

OBJECTIVE: to determine the performance characteristics of the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score on the outcome of biopsy relative to different ranges of free-to-total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ratio (f/tPSA) in men with a previous negative biopsy and a PSA level of 2.5-10 ng/mL, as urine tests like PCA3 are currently under investigation in order to improve prostate cancer diagnosis and to decrease the rate of unnecessary rebiopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: data from the previous prospective European multicentre study were reviewed. Only patients with a PSA level of 2.5-10 ng/mL were included in the present study. In all, 301 patients had complete data. The diagnostic accuracy of the PCA3 score for predicting a positive biopsy outcome was studied using sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values. The PCA3 performance was evaluated relative to three different subgroups of f/tPSA, as follows: >20% (group 1), 10-20% (group 2) and <10% (group 3). RESULTS: the prostate cancer detection rates were 18.8%, 23.9% and 34.8% in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PCA3 score, total PSA and f/tPSA was 0.688, 0.553 and 0.571, respectively. The percentage of men with positive biopsies was 30.6%, 37.0% and 44.4% in those with a PCA3 score of >30, vs 10.3%, 15.5% and 28.6% when the PCA3 score was <30, in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The difference was significant only in groups 1 and 2. In men with a f/tPSA of ≤ 10% the difference in detection rates relative to the PCA3 score was not statistically significant regardless of which PCA3 threshold was used. A high PCA3 score was significantly associated with age, clinical T2 stage and positive biopsy (P < 0.001, 0.013 and <0.001, respectively). In bivariate analysis accounting for the PCA3 score and the f/tPSA, a PCA3 score of >30 was a significant independent predictor of positive biopsies (odds ratio 3.01; 95% confidence interval 1.74-5.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 remained a better predictor of prostate cancer than f/tPSA. In men with a f/tPSA of >10%, the use of the PCA3 score was highly correlated with the risk of having cancer on re-biopsy, and could prevent unnecessary prostate biopsies if the value is low.