Health-Related Quality of Life with Gilteritinib versus Placebo Post-Transplant for FLT3-ITD+ Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

BMT CTN 1506 was a phase III randomized trial comparing gilteritinib versus placebo after allogeneic HCT for FLT3-ITD-positive AML. The primary analysis comparing relapse-free survival (RFS) was not statistically significant, however, patients with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD peri-HCT had significantly longer RFS with gilteritinib. The aim of this analysis is to describe the effect of post-HCT gilteritinib versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-BMT, FACT-Leukemia (-Leu), and EQ-5D-5L at post-HCT randomization, day 29, month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and/or end of therapy. HRQOL and clinically meaningful differences were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using mixed model repeated measures to evaluate longitudinal change from baseline and stratified Cox model to evaluate time to improvement. Between 8/2017 and 7/2020, 356 patients were randomized. HRQOL completion rate was acceptable (>70%) across all time points and measures. There were no differences in FACT-BMT, FACT-Leu, or EQ-5D-5L scores at any time point between cohorts. There was an increase in scores over time, indicating improvement in HRQOL post-HCT. Clinically meaningful improvement and time to improvement in HRQOL was similar in both arms. Despite higher TEAEs with gilteritinib, response to the question of being "bothered by side effects of treatment" did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis of MRD detectable and negative patients demonstrated no differences in HRQOL between arms. For FLT3-ITD+ AML patients undergoing HCT, gilteritinib maintenance was not associated with any difference in HRQOL or patient-reported impact of side effects. Trial Registration: NCT02997202.

Retrospective Study of Claudin 18 Isoform 2 Prevalence and Prognostic Association in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is an emerging biomarker and therapeutic target in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to obtain deeper understanding of CLDN18.2 positivity patterns, prognostic implications, and associations with various demographic, clinical, and molecular characteristics in G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Archived tumor tissue samples from 304 patients with G/GEJ adenocarcinoma in the United States were assessed for CLDN18.2 positivity by immunohistochemistry. CLDN18.2 positivity was defined as ≥50% or ≥75% of tumor cells with CLDN18 staining intensity ≥2+. CLDN18.2 positivity patterns were analyzed for association with prognosis and clinicopathologic/demographic characteristics. Where possible, CLDN18.2 positivity was analyzed for matched tissue samples to assess concordance between primary and metastatic tumors and concordance before and after chemotherapy. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of CLDN18.2-positive tumors (with ≥75% cutoff) was 44.4% (n = 135 of 304). CLDN18.2-positive tumors had a prevalence of 51.4% (n = 91 of 177) in gastric and 34.6% (n = 44 of 127) in GEJ adenocarcinoma. With a ≥50% cutoff, the prevalence of CLDN18.2-positive tumors was 64.4% (n = 114 of 177) in gastric adenocarcinoma and 44.9% (n = 57 of 127) in GEJ adenocarcinoma. There was no association between overall survival and CLDN18.2 positivity using either threshold. Statistically significant associations were noted between CLDN18.2 positivity and sex, histologic type of G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, and adenocarcinoma subtype (≥75% cutoff), and metastasis site and tumor grade (≥50% cutoff). The overall concordance of CLDN18.2 positivity (≥75% cutoff) was 73% (27 of 37) for matched primary versus metastatic tumor samples and 74% (29 of 39) for matched samples before and after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that CLDN18.2 positivity did not correlate with survival in G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, consistent with published data. On the basis of matched sample analysis, CLDN18.2 appears to demonstrate >70% concordance as a biomarker. Observed correlations with certain patient/tumor characteristics warrant further study.

Transcriptome-Based Prognostic and Predictive Biomarker Analysis of ENACT: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Enzalutamide in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Few studies have explored the potential for pharmacological interventions to delay disease progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). This preplanned transcriptomic analysis of patient samples from the ENACT trial aims to identify biomarkers in patients on AS who are at increased risk for disease progression or who may derive the greatest benefit from enzalutamide treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase II ENACT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02799745) trial, patients on AS were randomly assigned 1:1 to 160 mg orally once daily enzalutamide monotherapy or continued AS for 1 year. Transcriptional analyses were conducted on biopsies collected at trial screening, year 1, and year 2. Three gene expression signatures were evaluated in samples collected at screening and in available samples from patients on AS at any time during surveillance (expanded cohort): Decipher genomic classifier, androgen receptor activity (AR-A) score, and Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50) cell subtype signature. RESULTS: The Decipher genomic classifier score was prognostic; higher scores were associated with disease progression in the expanded cohort and AS arm of the expanded cohort. Patients with higher Decipher scores had greater positive treatment effect from enzalutamide as measured by time to secondary rise in prostate-specific antigen >25% above baseline. In patients treated with enzalutamide, higher AR-A scores and PAM50 luminal subtypes were associated with a greater likelihood of negative biopsy incidence at year 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the Decipher genomic classifier may be prognostic for disease progression in AS patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Higher Decipher and AR-A scores, as well as PAM50 luminal subtypes, may also serve as biomarkers for treatment response.

Real-world use, dose intensity, and adherence to enfortumab vedotin in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) monotherapy is approved for the treatment of advanced urothelial cancer as later-line therapy (post-immunotherapy and -platinum-chemotherapy) and as earlier-line therapy (cisplatin-ineligible, at least 1 prior therapy). We examined real-world EV monotherapy use, dose intensity and adherence across 280 US cancer clinics. METHODS: This postmarketing study used data from a nationwide (United States) deidentified patient-level electronic health record-derived database. Included were patients with advanced urothelial cancer initiating EV on or after December 19, 2019 (date of accelerated approval). We summarized characteristics of EV users using descriptive statistics and computed metrics of EV use, EV dose intensity, and EV treatment adherence. RESULTS: We identified 416 advanced urothelial cancer patients initiating EV monotherapy. More than half of patients (55.3%) received EV as later-line therapy (3L+), and nearly half (44.7%) received EV as earlier line therapy (1 or 2L). Dosing frequency (mean [SD] 2.4 [0.5] treatments per 28 day cycle) and dose (1.1 [0.2] mg/kg) were lower than label indication guidelines (1.25 mg/kg, Day 1, 8, 15 of a 28 day cycle). Only 58.8% of patients received an average of >2 treatments per 28-day cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced urothelial cancer treated with EV monotherapy in contemporary practice, EV dosing frequency, and dosage was lower in clinical practice than recommended in the product labeling. Further research is required to understand clinical factors and outcomes associated with the differences observed.

Enzalutamide Monotherapy vs Active Surveillance in Patients With Low-risk or Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: The ENACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021. Interventions: Randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety. Results: A total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.