PD-1 inhibition with retifanlimab and/or arginase inhibition with INCB001158 in Japanese patients with solid tumors: A phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Retifanlimab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death protein-1, and INCB001158 is an oral arginase inhibitor. This phase Ib study investigated retifanlimab, INCB001158, and their combination in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients received retifanlimab (500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W] i.v.) or escalating doses of INCB001158 (75 or 100 mg twice daily [BID]) monotherapy in Part 1 and combination of retifanlimab (500 mg Q4W) and INCB001158 (100 mg BID) in Part 2. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and determination of recommended phase II doses in Japanese patients. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (retifanlimab or INCB001158 monotherapy and combination; n = 6 each) were enrolled at 2 sites in Japan. There were no DLTs, fatal adverse events (AEs), or discontinuations due to AEs. Rash (all grade 1) was the most common treatment-emergent AE with retifanlimab (n = 6). Treatment-related AEs were reported with retifanlimab (n = 4) or INCB001158 (n = 2) monotherapy and with combination (n = 4); an immune-related AE (thyroid disorder, grade 2) was reported with combination. Two responses were observed with retifanlimab monotherapy (1 complete, 1 partial) and 1 stable disease (SD), for an overall response rate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-77.7) and disease control rate (DCR) of 50% (95% CI, 11.8-88.2). Three patients had SD with INCB001158 monotherapy (DCR 50%; 95% CI, 11.8-88.2). No responses or SD were observed with combination therapy. CONCLUSION: Retifanlimab, INCB001158, and their combination had acceptable safety profiles. Promising retifanlimab antitumor activity warrants further investigation in Japanese patients.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

A Phase I Study of Acapatamab, a Half-life Extended, PSMA-Targeting Bispecific T-cell Engager for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Safety and efficacy of acapatamab, a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) x CD3 bispecific T-cell engager were evaluated in a first-in-human study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC refractory to androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy received target acapatamab doses ranging from 0.003 to 0.9 mg in dose exploration (seven dose levels) and 0.3 mg (recommended phase II dose) in dose expansion intravenously every 2 weeks. Safety (primary objective), pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity (secondary objectives) were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 133 patients (dose exploration, n = 77; dose expansion, n = 56) received acapatamab. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event seen in 97.4% and 98.2% of patients in dose exploration and dose expansion, respectively; grade ≥ 3 was seen in 23.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Most CRS events were seen in treatment cycle 1; incidence and severity decreased at/beyond cycle 2. In dose expansion, confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses (PSA50) were seen in 30.4% of patients and radiographic partial responses in 7.4% (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1). Median PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-4.9], radiographic PFS per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 was 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.0-5.4). Acapatamab induced T-cell activation and increased cytokine production several-fold within 24 hours of initiation. Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected in 55% and impacted serum exposures in 36% of patients in dose expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Acapatamab was safe and tolerated and had a manageable CRS profile. Preliminary signs of efficacy with limited durable antitumor activity were observed. Acapatamab demonstrated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activity.

First-line talazoparib with enzalutamide in HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial.

Preclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197 .

Safety and pharmacokinetics of imaradenant (AZD4635) in Japanese patients with advanced solid malignancies: a phase I, open-label study.

PURPOSE: Imaradenant is a novel potent and selective adenosine A2A receptor antagonist that is hypothesized to reduce immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment. This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity of imaradenant. METHODS: Japanese patients with advanced solid malignancies received imaradenant 50 mg (n = 3) or 75 mg (n = 7) once daily (QD). The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objectives were pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity. RESULTS: The median treatment duration was 2.10 months and 2.14 months for the 50- and 75-mg QD cohorts, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea, malaise, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Five patients (50%) reported adverse events that were considered causally related to imaradenant; three patients had Grade 2 adverse events of malaise, nausea, and diarrhea. No deaths or serious adverse events occurred. The median times of maximum observed concentrations sampled after a single dose in the 50- and 75-mg QD cohorts were 1.08 h (range, 0.95-1.95) and 2.00 h (range, 0.92-5.52), respectively. There was little accumulation after multiple dosing, with geometric mean accumulation ratios of maximum concentration of 1.3 (50-mg QD) to 1.4 (75-mg QD) and area under the concentration-time curve 0-24 of 1.4 (50-mg QD) to 1.5 (75-mg QD). The best objective response was stable disease (3/10). CONCLUSION: No new or unexpected safety concerns were identified, and imaradenant had an acceptable safety profile at both 50- and 75-mg QD. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT03980821 (June 10, 2019).

TAS0313 plus Pembrolizumab for Post-Chemotherapy Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Naïve Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAS0313, a multi-epitope long peptide vaccine, plus pembrolizumab in post-chemotherapy immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). TAS0313 9 mg was administered subcutaneously followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg on Day 1, and as monotherapy on Day 8 and 15 of Cycles 1 and 2, and Day 1 of subsequent cycles in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Biomarkers of response were assessed. In 36 patients enrolled, the ORR was 33.3% (complete response: 7 patients; partial response: 5 patients). Median PFS was 5.0 months; 6- and 12-month progression-free rates were 46.4% and 36.5%, respectively. Median OS was not reached; 6-, 12-, and 24-month OS rates were 83.3%, 72.2%, and 55.1%, respectively. In post hoc analysis, patients with a tumor infiltrating CD8+ lymphocyte (CD8+ TIL) count ≥99 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥50 and lymphocyte count >1,380 cells/µL had higher ORRs and prolonged PFS versus patients with a CD8+ TIL count <99, PD-L1 CPS <50, and lymphocyte count ≤1,380 cells/µL. Thirty-four (94.4%) patients receiving combination therapy experienced treatment-related adverse events (AE), with pyrexia (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site reactions (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site induration (n = 6, 16.7%), and malaise (n = 6, 16.7%) the most common. No grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs occurred in ≥10% of patients. TAS0313 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy showed promising efficacy and manageable safety in la/mUC. Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI-183824.

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial.

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Xaluritamig, a STEAP1 × CD3 XmAb 2+1 Immune Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from Dose Exploration in a First-in-Human Study.

Xaluritamig (AMG 509) is a six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1)-targeted T-cell engager designed to facilitate lysis of STEAP1-expressing cancer cells, such as those in advanced prostate cancer. This first-in-human study reports monotherapy dose exploration for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), primarily taxane pretreated. Ninety-seven patients received ≥1 intravenous dose ranging from 0.001 to 2.0 mg weekly or every 2 weeks. MTD was identified as 1.5 mg i.v. weekly via a 3-step dose. The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 72%), fatigue (45%), and myalgia (34%). CRS occurred primarily during cycle 1 and improved with premedication and step dosing. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and RECIST responses across cohorts were encouraging [49% PSA50; 24% objective response rate (ORR)], with greater frequency at target doses ≥0.75 mg (59% PSA50; 41% ORR). Xaluritamig is a novel immunotherapy for prostate cancer that has shown encouraging results supporting further development. SIGNIFICANCE: Xaluritamig demonstrated encouraging responses (PSA and RECIST) compared with historical established treatments for patients with late-line mCRPC. This study provides proof of concept for T-cell engagers as a potential treatment for prostate cancer, validates STEAP1 as a target, and supports further clinical investigation of xaluritamig in prostate cancer. See related commentary by Hage Chehade et al., p. 20. See related article by Nolan-Stevaux et al., p. 90. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5.

Baseline characteristics may impact treatment duration of cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC: a subanalysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Cabazitaxel has demonstrated improvements in overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the pivotal comparison clinical trials TROPIC, PROSELICA and CARD. However, these trials include mCRPC patients with similar characteristics, and there are limited data on how baseline characteristics affect treatment discontinuation in the patient population. METHODS: To assess individual factors that may impact the discontinuation rate of cabazitaxel treatment, we conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a nationwide all-case, post-marketing surveillance of cabazitaxel in Japan. Patients were grouped according to the number of cabazitaxel treatment cycles received (1-2 and ≥3 cycles). Predictive factors were identified through multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Across 660 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, 70.2% received ≥3 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment. Those receiving 1-2 cycles of cabazitaxel had a greater proportion of patients with poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, presence of lung and liver metastases, higher prostate-specific antigen level and prior radiation therapy at baseline. Regardless of the number of cabazitaxel cycles received, the primary reason for discontinuation was progression of disease rather than adverse events. Compared with those receiving 1-2 cycles, a lower proportion of patients receiving 3-10 and ≥11 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment experienced adverse events. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between early discontinuation and presence of liver lesions, poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status and higher prostate-specific antigen level at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Post-marketing surveillance data suggest physicians should individualize cabazitaxel treatment based on certain patient characteristics at baseline.

TALAPRO-3 clinical trial protocol: phase III study of talazoparib plus enzalutamide in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in combination with androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors are a promising therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, TALAPRO-3 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations. The primary end point is investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per RECIST 1.1 in soft tissue, or per PCWG3 criteria in bone. The TALAPRO-3 study will demonstrate whether the addition of talazoparib can improve the efficacy of enzalutamide as assessed by rPFS in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04821622 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registry Name: Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC. Date of Registration: 29 March 2021.

Safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with darolutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, darolutamide was well tolerated for 25 months, but minimal long-term safety data are available. METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for patients receiving darolutamide for a median of 38 months (n = 13) are described in this pooled analysis of individual patient data from phase 1/2 studies. RESULTS: All patients reported TEAEs (mostly grade 1/2). The most common TEAEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Serious TEAEs were reported in six patients (none related to darolutamide). All treatment-related TEAEs (n = 5) were grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated; no new safety signals observed. In patients with mCRPC, long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. These findings are consistent with previous reports, demonstrating a favorable safety and tolerability profile of darolutamide.

Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors after proton beam therapy in head and neck mucosal melanoma: a case series.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has shown promising efficacy in treating locally advanced head and neck mucosal melanoma despite its poor prognosis. Although PBT may improve the efficacy of subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the safety of ICIs in patients who have previously received PBT has not been established. Hence, this study evaluated the safety of ICIs in patients who had recurrent mucosal melanoma after PBT. Between April 2013 and June 2022, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with cutaneous or mucosal melanoma at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. Seven patients were treated with ICIs after their head and neck mucosal melanoma (HNMM) recurred after PBT. Four of the seven patients experienced grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Due to irAE in the irradiation field, two patients had grade 3 hypopituitarism. Other grade 3 or higher irAEs included an increase in serum alanine aminotransferase in two patients and gastritis in one, and two patients discontinued ICI due to the irAEs. All irAEs were resolved with appropriate management. Although administering ICIs after PBT may increase the risk of irAEs, especially in the irradiation field, they appear manageable. These findings could help in the development of a treatment strategy for locally advanced HNMM that includes PBT and subsequent ICIs.

Comprehensive investigation of clinicopathological and immunological features to determine prognostic impact in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The JEWEL study.

OBJECTIVES: Current prognostic models for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are likely inaccurate due to recent treatment advances and improved survival outcomes. The JEWEL study used a data set from patients who received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to explore the prognostic impact of the tumor immune environment in the absence of immune checkpoint inhibitor intervention. METHODS: The primary analysis population comprised 569 of the 770 Japanese patients enrolled in the ARCHERY study who received first-line TKIs. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors associated with the primary (overall survival [OS]) and secondary outcomes (treatment duration) using 34 candidate explanatory variables. RESULTS: Median OS was 34.1 months (95% CI, 30.4-37.6) in the primary analysis population. A considerable negative prognostic impact (descriptive p ≤ 0.0005) on OS was seen with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >1.5 × upper limit of normal (adjusted HR [aHR], 3.30; 95% CI, 2.19-4.98), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 (aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.56-2.94), World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade 4 (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.43-2.51), C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≥0.3 (aHR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.40-2.26), and age ≥75 years (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24-2.18) in the multivariable analysis. PD-L1 and immunophenotype affected OS in univariable analyses but were not selected in the multivariable model as explanatory variables. CONCLUSIONS: JEWEL identified sex, age, ECOG PS, liver and bone metastases, CRP levels, WHO/ISUP grade, LDH, and albumin levels as key prognostic factors for OS after first-line TKI therapy for mRCC.

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TALAPRO-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Real-world effectiveness of third-line cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: CARD-like analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The CARD trial was conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel and experienced disease progression within 1 year on an androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT). Subsequent treatment with cabazitaxel had improved clinical outcomes compared with an alternative ARAT. This study aims to confirm the effectiveness of cabazitaxel in real-world patients in Japan and compare their characteristics with those of patients from the CARD trial. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide post-marketing surveillance registering all patients who were prescribed cabazitaxel in Japan between September 2014 and June 2015. Included patients had received docetaxel and ≤ 1 year of an ARAT (abiraterone or enzalutamide) prior to receiving cabazitaxel or an alternative ARAT, as their third-line therapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the time to treatment failure (TTF) of the third-line therapy. Patients were matched (1:1) from the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms based on propensity score (PS). RESULTS: Of the 535 patients analysed, 247 received cabazitaxel and 288 the alternative ARAT as their third-line therapy, of which, 91.3% (n = 263/288) received abiraterone and 8.7% (n = 25/288) received enzalutamide as their second third-line ARAT. Patients in the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms had TNM classification of M1 or MX in 73.3% and 68.1%, Gleason score of 8-10 in 78.5% and 79.2% and mean (standard deviation) serum PSA levels of 483 (1370) and 594 (1241) ng/mL, respectively. Initial cabazitaxel dose was ≤ 20 mg/m2 in 61.9% (n = 153/247) of the patients in the cabazitaxel arm. The median TTF (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the third-line therapy was 109 (94-128) days for cabazitaxel and 58 (57-66) days for the second ARAT, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.339 (0.279-0.413) favouring cabazitaxel. Similar results were obtained after PS-matching, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.323 (95% CI 0.258-0.402) favouring cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the CARD trial, cabazitaxel demonstrated superior effectiveness over a second alternative ARAT in a real-world patient population in Japan, despite the population having more advanced disease status and a lower dose of cabazitaxel being more frequently administered, than in the CARD trial.

First-in-human study of E7130 (a tumor microenvironment-ameliorating microtubule inhibitor) in patients with advanced solid tumors: Primary results of the dose-escalation part.

BACKGROUND: E7130 is a novel anticancer agent created from a total synthetic study of norhalichondrin B. The authors report the E7130 dose-escalation part of a first-in-human study of patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03444701). METHODS: Japanese patients ≥20 years of age were enrolled. E7130 was administered intravenously in two cycles: day 1 of a 21-day cycle (Q3W) or days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Q2W). Doses were escalated from 270 to 550 µg/m2 for the Q3W group or 25-400 µg/m2 for the Q2W group. The primary end point of the dose-escalation phase was safety and tolerability as assessed by the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events. Other end points included determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled: 15 in the E7130 Q3W group and 29 in the Q2W group. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in all patients; the most common TEAE overall was leukopenia (78.6%). Grade 3-4 TEAEs occurred in 93.3% of patients in the Q3W group and 86.2% of patients in the Q2W group. None had a TEAE resulting in study drug discontinuation, and no treatment-related deaths were reported. Per the DLT evaluation, the MTDs were determined as 480 µg/m2 Q3W and 300 µg/m2 Q2W. Significant changes in multiple plasma biomarkers, including vascular endothelial growth factor 3 and matrix metallopeptidase 9, were dose-dependent after initial doses of 350-480 µg/m2 . CONCLUSIONS: E7130 480 µg/m2 Q3W was chosen for the dose-expansion part over 300 µg/m2 Q2W primarily per dose-dependent biomarker results.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perioperative chemotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since it was first reported in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread rapidly across the globe resulting in a pandemic. As of August 2022, seven outbreak peaks have been confirmed in Tokyo, and the numbers of new cases in the fifth and later outbreak periods have been far greater than in the preceding periods. This retrospective study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perioperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who received perioperative chemotherapy at the National Cancer Center Hospital East were divided into 2 groups: 120 and 384 patients who started chemotherapy before and during the pandemic, respectively. The incidence of critical events that had potential detrimental effects on the prognosis, such as start of adjuvant chemotherapy ≥91 days after surgery and relative dose intensity of chemotherapy <85% were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant difference in the incidence of critical events was found. When stratified by outbreak period, the incidence of critical events was positively correlated with the increasing number of new cases of COVID-19 (r = 0.83, p = 0.04). Moreover, 25/173 patients (14%) who started perioperative chemotherapy during the fifth and sixth outbreak periods developed COVID-19 infection, 80% of whom (20/25) had a delay or interruption to their surgery or other perioperative treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perioperative chemotherapy on whole groups of patients was not evident when comparing periods before and after the pandemic, the impact is becoming prominent in parallel with increasing numbers of new COVID-19 cases.