Overall survival with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): secondary outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[18F]FDG) PET-CT. METHODS: TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[18F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete. FINDINGS: 291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1). INTERPRETATION: These results support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[18F]FDG-discordant disease. FUNDING: Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ENZA-p): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a radiolabelled small molecule that delivers ß radiation to cells expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), with activity and safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to compare [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 with cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this multicentre, unblinded, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. We recruited men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for whom cabazitaxel was considered the next appropriate standard treatment. Participants were required to have adequate renal, haematological, and liver function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Previous treatment with androgen receptor-directed therapy was allowed. Men underwent gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-flourine-18[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PET eligibility criteria for the trial were PSMA-positive disease, and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Men were randomly assigned (1:1) to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (6·0-8·5 GBq intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six cycles) or cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to ten cycles). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined by a reduction of at least 50% from baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2018, and Sept 3, 2019, we screened 291 men, of whom 200 were eligible on PET imaging. Study treatment was received by 98 (99%) of 99 men randomly assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus 85 (84%) of 101 randomly assigned to cabazitaxel. PSA responses were more frequent among men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group than in the cabazitaxel group (65 vs 37 PSA responses; 66% vs 37% by intention to treat; difference 29% (95% CI 16-42; p<0·0001; and 66% vs 44% by treatment received; difference 23% [9-37]; p=0·0016). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 32 (33%) of 98 men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 45 (53%) of 85 men in the cabazitaxel group. No deaths were attributed to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617. INTERPRETATION: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer led to a higher PSA response and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events. [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a new effective class of therapy and a potential alternative to cabazitaxel. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride, It's a Bloke Thing, and CAN4CANCER.

Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.).

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: the CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo). METHODS: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks until disease progression. Predefined coprimary QoL endpoints were time to deterioration (first worsening from baseline of ≥ 10 points) on the Physical Function (PF) and Global (GHS) scales. RESULTS: Of 750 randomized patients, 721 (358 of whom received CET/BRIV) were assessable for QoL. QoL compliance and baseline PF and GHS scores did not differ by treatment arm. The median time to deterioration was 1.6 months versus 1.1 months for GHS (P =.02) and 5.6 months versus 1.7 months for PF (P <.0001) favoring CET/placebo. Secondary analysis favored CET/placebo for QOL response on the PF, Cognitive Function, Fatigue, Nausea, Appetite, and Diarrhea scales. A greater percentage of patients on the CET/BRIV arm had PF worsening at 6 weeks (31% vs 17%). Clinical adverse events of ≥ grade 3 were more common with CET/BRIV than with CET/placebo, including fatigue (25% vs 11%), hypertension, rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and anorexia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CET/placebo, the combination of CET/BRIV worsened time to QoL deterioration for patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer on the PF and GHS scales of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. This result may be due to higher rates of fatigue and gastrointestinal adverse events.

A practical guide for the use of apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Australia.

Studies of patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer at high risk of developing overt metastases but with no current evidence of evaluable disease on computed tomography or bone scan non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostrate cancer have demonstrated increased metastasis-free survival and overall survival following treatment with the next-generation oral anti-androgen apalutamide (in addition to therapies that aim to lower testosterone to castrate levels) or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonist or surgical castration. Patients receiving apalutamide can be managed by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or urologists, preferably as part of a multidisciplinary team. However, the importance of additional safety monitoring for significant adverse effects and drug interactions should not be underestimated. The toxicities of apalutamide are manageable with experience and should be managed proactively to minimize their impact on patients. Monitoring of patients for apalutamide-specific toxicities, including skin rash, hypothyroidism, and QT prolongation should be carried out regularly, particularly in the first few months following initiation. Monitoring should continue alongside monitoring for toxicities of androgen deprivation, including cardiovascular risk, hot flashes, weight gain, bone health, muscle wasting, and diabetic risk. This review is a practical guide to the use of apalutamide describing the management of patients including dosing and administration, toxicities, potential drug interactions, and safety monitoring requirements.

Pembrolizumab with Chemoradiation as Treatment for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of the PCR-MIB Phase 2 Clinical Trial (ANZUP 1502).

BACKGROUND: Radiation may improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition. This study investigates the combination of pembrolizumab and chemoradiation (CRT) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of pembrolizumab combined with CRT for MIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-arm phase 2 trial was performed with 28 participants having cT2-T4aN0M0 MIBC (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1; estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥40 ml/min; no contraindications to pembrolizumab) suitable for CRT. INTERVENTION: Whole bladder radiation therapy (RT; 64 Gy in 32 daily fractions, over 6.5 wk, combined with cisplatin (35 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] weekly, six doses) and pembrolizumab (200 mg IV q3 weeks, seven doses), both starting with RT. Surveillance cystoscopy/biopsy and computerised tomography scans performed 12 and 24 wk after CRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was feasibility, determined by a prespecified satisfactory low rate of grade 3 or worse nonurinary toxicity or completion of planned CRT according to defined parameters. Secondary endpoints were complete cystoscopic response, locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled with a 31-mo median follow-up. Six had Grade >3 nonurinary adverse events during/within 12 wk after treatment; three had more than one cisplatin dose reduction. The 24-wk post-CRT complete response (CR) rate was 88%. Eight patients developed metastatic disease, and three had nonmetastatic progression. The DMFS at 2 yr is 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54-90%), with LRPFS at 2 yr of 87% (95% CI 64-96%) and median OS of 39 mo (95% CI 17.1-not evaluable). Limitations are the single-arm design and sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Combining pembrolizumab with CRT for MIBC was feasible, with manageable toxicity and promising CR rates. PATIENT SUMMARY: Immunotherapy treats nonmetastatic/metastatic bladder cancer effectively. We combined pembrolizumab with chemotherapy and radiation to assess its safety and impact on treatment delivery. The combination was feasible with encouraging early activity. Further larger trials are warranted.

Plasma Cetuximab Concentrations Correlate With Survival in Patients With Advanced KRAS Wild Type Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is a standard of care therapy for patients with RAS wild-type (WT) advanced colorectal cancer. Limited data suggest a wide variation in cetuximab plasma concentrations after standard dosing regimens. We correlated cetuximab plasma concentrations with survival and toxicity. METHODS: The CO. 20 study randomized patients with RAS WT advanced colorectal cancer in a 1:1 ratio to cetuximab 400 mg/m2 intravenously followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m2, plus brivanib 800 mg orally daily or placebo. Blood samples obtained at week 5 precetuximab treatment were analyzed by ELISA. Patients were grouped into tertiles based on plasma cetuximab concentrations. Cetuximab concentration tertiles were correlated with survival outcomes and toxicity. Patient demographic and biochemical parameters were evaluated as co-variables. RESULTS: Week 5 plasma cetuximab concentrations were available for 591 patients (78.8%). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.4 months and 7.8 months for patients in the highest (T3) and lowest tertiles (T1) respectively. On multivariable analysis, plasma cetuximab concentration was associated with OS (HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.83, P < .001, T3 vs. T1), and a trend towards progression-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02, P = .07, T3 vs. T1). There was no association between cetuximab concentration and skin toxicity or diarrhea. CONCLUSION: The standard cetuximab dosing regimen may not be optimal for all patients. Further pharmacokinetic studies are needed to optimize cetuximab dosing given the potential improvement in OS.

Changing management and survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancers have poor outcomes. Yet recent developments in the use of chemotherapy and surgery have promised improvements in survival. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment and survival for all patients presenting with stage IV colorectal cancer managed over the last 20 years at a tertiary referral center and to define independent predictors for survival. METHODS: A cohort of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated from 1989 through 1995 served as a historical control for comparison with prospective cohorts treated from 1996 through 2002 or from 2003 through 2009. The Kaplan Meier technique was used to calculate overall survival. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients with stage IV colorectal cancer were analyzed. Two-year overall survival was significantly higher in the 2003 to 2009 cohort (40.3%; 95%CI, 28.6-51.8%) than in either the 1989 to 1995 cohort (20.6%, 95%CI, 13.5- 28.6%) or the 1996 to 2002 cohort (19.3%; 95%CI, 12.8-26.9%). Significant independent predictors for overall survival included surgical resection with anastomosis (hazard ratio, 0.507; 95%CI, 0.371-0.692), surgical resection with stoma (0.578; 0.401-0.833), ASA score 3 (1.493; 1.150-1.941) or score 4 (2.532; 1.505-4.258), receiving palliative chemotherapy (0.64; 0.457-0.885), and receiving palliative radiotherapy (0.543; 0.352-0.835). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of overall survival for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated from 1989 through 2009, significant improvements were noted only in the last 7 years. Improvements may be related to more widespread use of palliative chemotherapy, newer chemotherapy agents, surgical excision of the primary tumor, and lower postoperative mortality.

Final Analysis of the Ipilimumab Versus Placebo Following Radiotherapy Phase III Trial in Postdocetaxel Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Identifies an Excess of Long-term Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly. OBJECTIVE: To report the final analysis of OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm. PATIENT SUMMARY: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond.

Phase III Trial of PROSTVAC in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: PROSTVAC, a viral vector-based immunotherapy, prolonged median overall survival (OS) by 8.5 months versus placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a phase II study. This phase III study further investigated those findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to PROSTVAC (Arm V; n = 432), PROSTVAC plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Arm VG; n = 432), or placebo (Arm P; n = 433), stratified by prostate-specific antigen (less than 50 ng/mL v 50 ng/mL or more) and lactate dehydrogenase (less than 200 v 200 U/L or more). Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were patients alive without events (AWE)-namely, radiographic progression, pain progression, chemotherapy initiation, or death-at 6 months and safety. The study design was a superiority trial of PROSTVAC (Arm V or Arm VG) versus Arm P. Three interim analyses were planned. RESULTS: At the third interim analysis, criteria for futility were met and the trial was stopped early. Neither active treatment had an effect on median OS (Arm V, 34.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20; P = .47; Arm VG, 33.2 months; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.22; P = .59; Arm P, 34.3 months). Likewise, AWE at 6 months was similar (Arm V, 29.4%; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.29; Arm VG, 28.0%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.20; placebo, 30.3%). Adverse events were similar for the treatment and placebo groups, with the most common being injection site reactions (62% to 72%) and fatigue (21% to 24%). Arrhythmias were the most common cardiac-related events (1.4% to 3.5%). There were no reports of either myocarditis or pericarditis. Serious treatment-related events occurred in less than 1% of all patients. CONCLUSION: Whereas PROSTVAC was safe and well tolerated, it had no effect on OS or AWE in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Combination therapy is currently being explored in clinical trials.

Cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and quality of life data from the Australian early access program.

AIM: Cabazitaxel is a next generation taxane that has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) whose disease progressed during or after docetaxel-based therapy. A worldwide early access program (EAP) study was established to provide access to cabazitaxel ahead of commercial availability and to evaluate its safety and tolerability. The Australian EAP included patient-reported outcomes to evaluate the impact of cabazitaxel on quality of life (QoL). The final safety and QoL results from the Australian EAP for cabazitaxel are reported. METHODS: Australian patients with mCRPC previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 ) every 3 weeks plus prednisone/prednisolone (10 mg daily) until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, physician's decision or patient's refusal of further treatment. QoL data was collected using the AQoL-8D questionnaire. RESULTS: 104 patients from 18 Australian sites (median age at baseline, 70) enrolled in the EAP and completed at least one AQoL-8D questionnaire. Patients received a median of 6 cycles of cabazitaxel. 67 patients (64.4%) experienced grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); the most frequent TEAEs were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhoea, and vomiting. QoL scores remained stable with increasing treatment cycles. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the safety profile cabazitaxel is manageable in the Australian clinical practice setting and that QoL is maintained with little or no detrimental effect of cabazitaxel in patients continuing on treatment without disease progression.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Ipilimumab Versus Placebo in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Patients With Metastatic Chemotherapy-Naive Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Tasquinimod in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Tasquinimod, a novel oral therapy targeting the tumor microenvironment, significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This phase III study was conducted to confirm the phase II results and to detect an overall survival (OS) benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and evidence of bone metastases were assigned (2:1) to receive tasquinimod once per day or placebo until progression or toxicity. The primary end point was radiographic PFS (rPFS; time from random assignment to radiologic progression or death) per Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria and RECIST 1.1. The study had 99.9% power to detect an rPFS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.6 with a two-sided alpha error of .05 and 80% power to detect a target HR of 0.8 for OS, the key secondary end point. RESULTS: In all, 1,245 patients were randomly assigned to either tasquinimod (n = 832) or placebo (n = 413) between March 2011 and December 2012 at 241 sites in 37 countries. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups: median age, 71 years; Karnofsky performance status ≥ 90%, 77.3%; and visceral metastases, 21.1%. Estimated median rPFS by central review was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.2 months) with tasquinimod and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 5.5 months) with placebo (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.75; P < .001). Median OS was 21.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 23.0 months) with tasquinimod and 24.0 months (95% CI, 21.4 to 26.9 months) with placebo (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.28; P = .25). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were more frequent with tasquinimod (42.8% v 33.6%), the most common being anemia, fatigue, and cancer pain. CONCLUSION: In chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC, tasquinimod significantly improved rPFS compared with placebo. However, no OS benefit was observed.

A phase I study of recombinant human leukemia inhibitory factor in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is a pleiotropic molecule of the interleukin 6 family of cytokines. We aimed to examine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and biological effects of recombinant human LIF (rhLIF, emfilermin) in patients with advanced cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In stage 1 of the study, 34 patients received rhLIF or placebo (3:1 ratio) at doses of 0.25-16.0 micro g/kg/day or 4.0 micro g/kg three times daily for 7 days. In stage 2, 40 patients received rhLIF or placebo, either once daily for 14 days commencing the day after chemotherapy (0.25-8.0 micro g/kg/day) or for 7 days commencing the day before chemotherapy (4.0 micro g/kg three times daily). The chemotherapy was cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2). RESULTS: In stage 1, platelet counts increased in most patients, including those who received placebo. Blood progenitor cells increased in response to rhLIF. In stage 2, platelet recovery to baseline levels was earlier for patients receiving higher doses of rhLIF (>/=4.0 micro g/kg/day; P = 0.02). The neutrophil nadir after chemotherapy was less severe in patients receiving >/=4.0 micro g/kg/day of rhLIF. In stages 1 and 2, increases in C reactive protein were seen at higher doses. Several patients developed evidence of autonomic dysfunction, in particular impotence and episodic hypotension. The dose-limiting toxicities were hypotension and rigors. Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated a short half-life (1-5 h) independent of dose. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a biological effect of rhLIF on blood progenitor cells, C reactive protein levels, and hemopoietic recovery after chemotherapy.

Clinical perspectives: practical insights from clinical experience with cabazitaxel in Australia.

Prostate cancer, and in particular the management options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), remains an important health issue. The approval of cabazitaxel provides a new treatment option for patients who have progressed despite docetaxel therapy. Clinical use of cabazitaxel in mCRPC is based on the results of the TROPIC study, which demonstrated an approximately 30% reduction in the risk of death compared with mitoxantrone. In this paper, we draw on accumulating clinical experience with cabazitaxel in Australia to discuss important questions such as how to select the right patient for treatment and how to proactively prevent and manage toxicities associated with this therapy. Recognizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, opinion and insight has been sought from medical oncologists, nurses and pharmacists. While lack of trial data means that a number of questions remain unanswered, local clinical experience has helped to guide treatment decisions and refine management protocols. Appropriate patient selection, careful ongoing monitoring and proactive management of adverse events will ensure optimal treatment of patients. Nurses in particular play an important role in educating patients and identifying patients at increased risk of developing adverse events with cabazitaxel. The oncology team must work together to educate patients; taking a proactive approach to issues such as adverse events will help maximize the clinical outcome of cabazitaxel treatment and impact positively on the patient's quality of life.

Targeted MET inhibition in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase II study and biomarker analysis with rilotumumab plus mitoxantrone and prednisone.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab, a fully human, monoclonal antibody against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor, combined with mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blinded phase II study randomized (1:1:1) patients with progressive, taxane-refractory CRPC to receive MP (12 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, 5 mg twice a day orally days 1-21, respectively) plus 15 mg/kg rilotumumab, 7.5 mg/kg rilotumumab, or placebo (i.v. day 1) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were randomized. Median OS was 12.2 versus 11.1 months [HR, 1.10; 80% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.48] in the combined rilotumumab versus control arms. Median progression-free survival was 3.0 versus 2.9 months (HR, 1.02; 80% CI, 0.79-1.31). Treatment appeared well tolerated with peripheral edema (24% vs. 8%) being more common with rilotumumab. A trend toward unfavorable OS was observed in patients with high tumor MET expression regardless of treatment. Soluble MET levels increased in all treatment arms. Total HGF levels increased in the rilotumumab arms. Rilotumumab showed linear pharmacokinetics when co-administered with MP. CONCLUSIONS: Rilotumumab plus MP had manageable toxicities and showed no efficacy improvements in this estimation study. High tumor MET expression may identify patients with CRPC with poorer prognosis.