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.

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase Ib Study of Crizotinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with ALK Translocation.

LESSONS LEARNED: This study evaluating first-line crizotinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was terminated early because increased availability of second-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in difficulty identifying and accruing eligible patients. In the small number of patients enrolled, elevated transaminases were the most common treatment-related toxicity. No other relevant toxicities were observed. Although no definitive conclusions could be drawn because of the small number of patients studied, the higher frequency of severe transaminase increases noted in this sample should be of concern if ALK inhibitor and PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitor combinations are tested in future studies. BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests single-agent crizotinib is efficacious for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This study evaluated the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of crizotinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Patients were initially treated at dose level 0 (DL0) with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (cycle duration was 3 weeks). If a dose-limiting toxicity occurred, subsequent patients were enrolled at a lower dose level (dose level -1 [DL-1]: 3 weeks of crizotinib monotherapy 250 mg twice daily, followed by crizotinib 250 mg twice daily with the addition of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity. Antitumor activity was assessed. RESULTS: Nine patients were enrolled: two at DL0, then seven at DL-1. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients (grade 3 increases in alanine aminotransferase [ALT] and aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and grade 3 fatigue at DL0; grade 3 increase in ALT and grade 3 increases in both ALT and AST at DL-1). CONCLUSION: The maximum tolerated dose was not determined because slow accrual resulted in early study termination.

Determinants of Response to Talazoparib in Patients with HER2-Negative, Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have demonstrated efficacy in tumors with germline breast cancer susceptibility genes (gBRCA) 1 and 2 mutations, but further factors influencing response to PARPi are poorly understood. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Breast cancer tumor tissue from patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations from the phase III EMBRACA trial of the PARPi talazoparib versus chemotherapy was sequenced using FoundationOne CDx. RESULTS: In the evaluable intent-to-treat population, 96.1% (296/308) had ≥1 tumor BRCA (tBRCA) mutation and there was strong concordance (95.3%) between tBRCA and gBRCA mutational status. Genetic/genomic characteristics including BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH; identified in 82.6% of evaluable patients), DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutational burden, and tumor homologous recombination deficiency [assessed by genomic LOH (gLOH)] demonstrated no association with talazoparib efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BRCA LOH status, DDR gene mutational burden, and gLOH were not associated with talazoparib efficacy; however, these conclusions are qualified by population heterogeneity and low patient numbers in some subgroups. Further investigation in larger patient populations is warranted.

Mechanism-related circulating proteins as biomarkers for clinical outcome in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Several proteins that promote angiogenesis are overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and have been implicated in disease pathogenesis. Sunitinib has antiangiogenic activity and is an oral multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs)-1, -2, and -3, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs)-α and -ß, stem-cell factor receptor (KIT), and other tyrosine kinases. In a phase II study of sunitinib in advanced HCC, we evaluated the plasma pharmacodynamics of five proteins related to the mechanism of action of sunitinib and explored potential correlations with clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC received a starting dose of sunitinib 50 mg/day administered orally for 4 weeks on treatment, followed by 2 weeks off treatment. Plasma samples from 37 patients were obtained at baseline and during treatment and were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-C, soluble VEGFR-2 (sVEGFR-2), soluble VEGFR-3 (sVEGFR-3), and soluble KIT (sKIT). RESULTS: At the end of the first sunitinib treatment cycle, plasma VEGF-A levels were significantly increased relative to baseline, while levels of plasma VEGF-C, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3, and sKIT were significantly decreased. Changes from baseline in VEGF-A, sVEGFR-2, and sVEGFR-3, but not VEGF-C or sKIT, were partially or completely reversed during the first 2-week off-treatment period. High levels of VEGF-C at baseline were significantly associated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined disease control, prolonged time to tumor progression (TTP), and prolonged overall survival (OS). Baseline VEGF-C levels were an independent predictor of TTP by multivariate analysis. Changes from baseline in VEGF-A and sKIT at cycle 1 day 14 or cycle 2 day 28, and change in VEGF-C at the end of the first off-treatment period, were significantly associated with both TTP and OS, while change in sVEGFR-2 at cycle 1 day 28 was an independent predictor of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline plasma VEGF-C levels predicted disease control (based on RECIST) and were positively associated with both TTP and OS in this exploratory analysis, suggesting that this VEGF family member may have utility in predicting clinical outcome in patients with HCC who receive sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00247676.

Talazoparib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Enrolled in Asian Countries: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, multicentre, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumour spread is partly dependent on neoangiogenesis. In this open-label, multicentre, phase II trial done in Europe and Asia, sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with anti-angiogenic properties, was assessed in patients with advanced unresectable HCC. METHODS: Between February and July, 2006, eligible patients were enrolled and treated with repeated cycles of oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment). The primary endpoint of this Simon two-stage phase II trial was objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria, with an expected response rate of 15%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247676. FINDINGS: Of 37 patients enrolled, one (2.7%) patient experienced a confirmed partial response, giving an overall objective response rate of 2.7% (95% CI 0.1-14.2); on the basis of this, the trial did not proceed to the second stage. 13 (35%) of 37 patients achieved stable disease for over 3 months. Commonly observed grade 3 and 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (14 of 37; 37.8%), neutropenia (nine of 37; 24.3%), asthenia (five of 37; 13.5%), hand-foot syndrome (four of 37; 10.8%), and anaemia (four of 37; 10.8%). There were four deaths among the 37 patients (10.8%) that were possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Sunitinib showed pronounced toxicities at a dose of 50 mg/day in patients with unresectable HCC. The response rate was low, and the study did not meet the primary endpoint based on RECIST criteria. FUNDING: Pfizer Oncology.

Final results of the large-scale multinational trial PROFILE 1005: efficacy and safety of crizotinib in previously treated patients with advanced/metastatic ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is a potent, orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report final results from PROFILE 1005, the largest clinical trial to date for an ALK inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROFILE 1005 (NCT00932451) was a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; 3 week continuous treatment cycles) in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC after failure of ≥1 lines of systemic treatment for locally advanced/metastatic disease. Patients' tumour ALK status was initially determined by a central laboratory until a protocol amendment permitted enrolment of patients based on locally determined ALK status. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours V.1.1 and adverse events (AEs). Cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. RESULTS: 1069 patients were enrolled; 1066 received crizotinib. The as-treated population comprised 908 and 158 patients, in whom tumour positive ALK-status was determined centrally (± locally) or locally only, respectively. At baseline, a majority of patients were <65 years (84%), 66% were never smokers and 46% were Asian. Derived investigator-assessed ORR was 54% (95% CI 51 to 57) and 41% (95% CI 33 to 49) in the central-testing and local-testing subgroups, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs in the overall population (any grade) were vision disorder (58%), nausea (51%), diarrhoea (47%) and vomiting (47%). PRO scores demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in lung cancer symptoms and global quality of life. CONCLUSION: The efficacy, safety and PRO profiles of crizotinib in this cohort of 1066 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC are consistent with previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Phase 2 trial (NCT00932451); Results.

Sunitinib versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B-infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C-infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). CONCLUSION: OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B-infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C-infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

Changes in tumor density in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

PURPOSE: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) may underestimate the efficacy of targeted therapies. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies with sunitinib, RECIST-defined response rates are low, although hypodensity on computed tomography (CT) scans occurs more frequently. This exploratory analysis investigated tumor density as a surrogate endpoint of sunitinib activity in a phase II HCC study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received sunitinib 50 mg/d (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Tumor size and density were assessed on CT scans by using RECIST and Choi criteria, the latter of which classify a partial response as a 15% or more reduction in tumor density or a 10% or more reduction in tumor size. The overall percentage volume of tumor necrosis was calculated with volumetric reconstruction. Tumor perfusion parameters were assessed by using perfusion CT scans with specific acquisition. RESULTS: Among the 26 evaluable patients, 1 achieved a partial response and 22 had tumor stabilization by RECIST. In analysis of tumor density, 17 of 26 patients (65.4%) were responders by Choi criteria. Volumetric assessment showed major tumor necrosis (≥30% of tumor volume) in 10 of 21 patients (47.6%). Among four patients evaluated, tumor blood flow was reduced by 58.8% and blood volume by 68.4% after 4 weeks of treatment. The median time to progression (TTP) was 6.4 months. Patients with responses by Choi criteria had a significantly longer TTP (7.5 months) compared with nonresponders (4.8 months; HR = 0.33, two-sided P = 0.0182). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor density assessment suggested that radiologic endpoints in addition to RECIST may be considered to capture sunitinib activity in HCC.

Sunitinib in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase I dose-escalation study.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activities were evaluated. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 and stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were included in this open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation phase I study. Treatment was administered in 3-week cycles: oral sunitinib 37.5 or 50mg/day intermittently (Schedule 2/1: 2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment) or 25mg continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule with intravenous infusions of gemcitabine (1000 or 1250 mg/m(2) days 1, 8) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) day 1). RESULTS: A total of 28 evaluable patients were assigned to four dose levels. Most adverse events (AEs) on the Schedule 2/1 MTD were mild to moderate. Dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred on both schedules, limiting treatment to a median of four cycles. Four of 18 evaluable patients (22%) on Schedule 2/1 and 1 of 6 patients (17%) on the CDD schedule had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was identified as sunitinib 37.5mg (Schedule 2/1), gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2), and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), with most AEs being mild to moderate. However, frequent dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred. There was evidence of antitumor activity with this combination.