Improved Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Pembrolizumab monotherapy for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer without carcinoma in situ and unresponsive to BCG (KEYNOTE-057): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The KEYNOTE-057 trial evaluated activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with BCG-unresponsive high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer who were ineligible for or declined radical cystectomy. In cohort A (patients with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumours) of the KEYNOTE-057 study, pembrolizumab monotherapy led to a complete response rate of 41% at 3 months, and 46% of responders maintained a response lasting at least 12 months. Here, we evaluate pembrolizumab monotherapy in cohort B of patients with papillary tumours without carcinoma in situ. METHODS: KEYNOTE-057 is a single-arm, phase 2 study in 54 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. Cohort B eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had BCG-unresponsive high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with papillary tumours (high-grade Ta or any-grade T1) without carcinoma in situ. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour within 12 weeks of first pembrolizumab dose was required. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles. Primary endpoint was 12-month disease-free survival of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer or progressive disease as assessed by cystoscopy, cytology, and central pathology and radiology review. Activity was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline evaluation. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02625961, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2016, and June 17, 2021, 132 patients (104 [79%] men and 28 [21%] women) who had received a median of ten (IQR 9-15) previous BCG instillations were enrolled into cohort B of the study. Patients received a median of 10 cycles (IQR 6-27) of pembrolizumab. At data cutoff date, Oct 20, 2022, median follow-up was 45·4 months (IQR 36·4-59·3) and five (4%) of 132 patients remained on treatment. The 12-month disease-free survival was 43·5% (95% CI 34·9-51·9). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97 (73%) of 132 patients; 19 (14%) had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event; the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were colitis (in three [2%] patients) and diarrhoea (in two [2%]). 17 (13%) of 132 patients experienced serious treatment-related adverse events, of which colitis (three patients [2%]) was most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed antitumour activity and manageable toxicity in patients with BCG-unresponsive high-risk Ta or T1 bladder cancer without carcinoma in situ and could potentially be a suitable treatment option for patients who decline or are ineligible for radical cystectomy. Findings will need to be confirmed in a randomised controlled trial. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Differences in real-world outcomes by risk classification for localized prostate cancer patients after radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world evidence exists on the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) who received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as the initial treatment. This study evaluated clinical outcomes of US patients with high-risk LPC (HR-LPC) and low/intermediate-risk LPC (LIR-LPC) who received EBRT. METHODS: This retrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data from 2012 to 2019 included patients ≥ 65 years old who received EBRT as initial therapy. Baseline patient characteristics were summarized, metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival, and time to initiation of advanced prostate cancer treatment were compared using Kaplan-Meier (KM) and adjusted Cox proportional hazard (PH) models. 5-year survival probabilities stratified by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic [NH] White, NH Black, NH Asian, and Hispanic) were assessed. RESULTS: Of 11,313 eligible patients, 41% (n = 4600) had HR-LPC and 59% (n = 6713) had LIR-LPC. Patient characteristics for both groups were comparable, with mean age at EBRT initiation > 70 years, 86% white, and mean follow-up time >40 months. More patients in the HR-LPC than LIR-LPC groups (78% vs 34%) had concurrent androgen deprivation therapy use and for a longer duration (median 10.4 months vs. 7.4 months). A higher proportion of HR-LPC patients developed metastasis, died, or received advanced prostate cancer treatment. Adjusted Cox PH survival analyses showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher risk of mortality (hazard ratios [HR], 1.57 [1.38, 2.34]), metastasis or death (HR, 1.97 [1.78, 2.17]), and advanced prostate cancer therapy use (HR, 2.57 [2.11, 3.14]) for HR-LPC than LIR-LPC patients. Within 5 years after the initial EBRT treatment, 18%-26% of patients with HR-LPC are expected to have died or developed metastasis. The 5-year MFS rate in the HR-LPC group was lower than the LIR-LPC group across all racial/ethnic subgroups. NH Black patients with HR-LPC had the highest all-cause mortality rate and lowest rate of receiving advanced prostate cancer treatment, compared to other racial/ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study of clinical outcomes in patients with LPC treated with EBRT suggests substantial disease burden in patients with HR-LPC and highlights the need for additional treatment strategies to improve clinical outcomes in patients with HR-LPC.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Darolutamide in Combination With Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Black Patients From the Randomized ARASENS Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ARASENS trial (NCT02799602), darolutamide in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly reduced the risk of death by 32.5% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .0001) compared with placebo plus ADT with docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We present efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in Black patients from ARASENS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to darolutamide 600 mg or placebo twice daily in combination with ADT and docetaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Key secondary endpoints included time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and safety. RESULTS: In ARASENS, 54 Black patients received darolutamide (n = 26) or placebo (n = 28) plus ADT and docetaxel. In Black patients, overall survival favored darolutamide versus placebo (median, not reached vs. 38.7 months; stratified HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-1.02), with 4-year survival rates of 62% versus 41%. The darolutamide group also had longer time to CRPC compared with the placebo group (median, not reached vs .12.6 months; HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.30). The safety profile of darolutamide in Black patients was consistent with that observed for the overall ARASENS population (grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, TEAEs: 61.5% vs. 66.1%; serious TEAEs: 42.3% vs. 44.8%). CONCLUSION: In this small population of Black patients with mHSPC from the ARASENS trial, darolutamide was associated with an improvement in survival and time to CRPC and was well tolerated. Efficacy and safety findings in Black patients were consistent with the overall ARASENS population.

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

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

Apalutamide for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy (Apa-RP).

PURPOSE: Approximately 25% to 50% of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) within 2 years of radical prostatectomy. The Apa-RP study (NCT04523207) investigated whether adjuvant apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in high-risk patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy improved BCR-free survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Apa-RP was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study conducted in community urology practices in the US. High-risk patients who had radical prostatectomy received 12 cycles of apalutamide (240 mg daily; 28-day cycles) plus ADT. The primary end point was BCR-free survival. Secondary end points included testosterone recovery (≥150 ng/dL) and safety. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were enrolled; median age was 66.0 years (range 46.0-77.0 years). Median preoperative PSA and baseline testosterone were 7.6 ng/mL (range 2.2-62.7 ng/mL) and 340.0 ng/dL (range 43.0-939.0 ng/dL), respectively. The BCR-free rate at 24 months (12 months after completion of planned therapy) was 100% (90% CI 93-100). Serum testosterone recovery rate (≥50 and ≥150 ng/dL) 12 months after treatment completion was 96% (95% CI 88-98) and 77% (95% CI 66-85), respectively. Overall, 107 (99%) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, with 24 (22%) experiencing grade 3 to 4 events. CONCLUSIONS: In Apa-RP, BCR-free survival was 100% with 77% of patients having testosterone recovery (≥150 ng/dL) within 12 months of actual treatment completion and a manageable safety profile. These results provide proof of concept that treatment intensification with 12 cycles of apalutamide plus ADT could become an option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523207.

A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Cxbladder Triage to Cystoscopy in Patients With Microhematuria: The Safe Testing of Risk for Asymptomatic Microhematuria Trial.

PURPOSE: AUA guidelines for patients with microhematuria (≥3 red blood cells [RBC]/high-power field [hpf]) include cystoscopy for most over age 40 due to risk of urothelial cancer (UC). Cxbladder Triage (CxbT) is a urinary genomic test with UC negative predictive value of 99%. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we compared cystoscopy use in a standard of care (SOC) arm vs a marker-based approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with hematuria provided urine for a CxbT. Those categorized as lower risk (LR), defined as 3 to 29 RBC/hpf and minimal smoking history (<10 pack-years) were randomized between the test group provided with the CxbT result vs the SOC control group. Negative CxbT patients were offered omission of cystoscopy with surveillance. "Not lower risk" (NLR) patients (>30 RBC/hpf or >10 pack-year smoking history) had a CxbT but otherwise SOC. Patient decision and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 390 eligible patients, 255 were NLR and 135 were LR randomized to CxbT informed decision or SOC. The median age was 62 years (range 18-94) and 54% were male. Overall, 63% of CxbT tests were negative. For NLR patients, 82% had cystoscopy. In the LR control group, cystoscopy was performed in 67% of SOC and 27% in the test group (relative risk 0.41 [95% CI 0.27-0.61]). Compared to cystoscopy, CxbT had 90% sensitivity, 56% specificity, and 99% negative predictive value for UC. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, use of CxbT in patients with LR hematuria resulted in 59% reduction of cystoscopy use. This clinical utility of CxbT can reduce the burden of unnecessary cystoscopies.

Clinician-Reported Management Recommendations in Response to Universal Germline Genetic Testing in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Identification of pathogenic germline variants in patients with prostate cancer can help inform treatment selection, screening for secondary malignancies, and cascade testing. Limited real-world data are available on clinician recommendations following germline genetic testing in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data and clinician recommendations were collected from unselected patients with prostate cancer who underwent germline testing through the PROCLAIM trial. Differences among groups of patients were determined by 2-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance set at P < .05. Logistic regression was performed to assess the influence of test results in clinical decision-making while controlling for time of diagnosis (newly vs previously diagnosed). RESULTS: Among 982 patients, 100 (10%) were positive (>1 pathogenic germline variant), 482 (49%) had uncertain results (>1 variant of uncertain significance), and 400 (41%) were negative. Patients with positive results were significantly more likely than those with negative or uncertain results to receive recommendations for treatment changes (18% vs 1.4%, P < .001), follow-up changes (64% vs 11%, P < .001), and cascade testing (71% vs 5.4%, P < .001). Logistic regression demonstrated that positive and uncertain results were significantly associated with both changes to treatment and follow-up (P < .001) when controlling for new or previous diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Germline genetic testing results informed clinical recommendations for patients with prostate cancer, especially in patients with positive results. Higher than anticipated rates of clinical management changes in patients with uncertain results highlight the need for increased genetic education of clinicians treating patients with prostate cancer.

Efficacy of Intravesical Nadofaragene Firadenovec for Patients With Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-Unresponsive Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: 5-Year Follow-Up From a Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg is a nonreplicating adenoviral vector-based gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive carcinoma in situ (CIS) with/without high-grade Ta/T1. We report outcomes following 5 years of planned follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 3 trial (NCT02773849) enrolled patients with BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer in 2 cohorts: CIS ± Ta/T1 (CIS; n = 107) and Ta/T1 without CIS (Ta/T1 cohort; n = 50). Patients received 75 mL (3 × 1011 vp/mL) nadofaragene firadenovec intravesically once every 3 months with cystoscopy and cytology assessments, with continued treatment offered to those remaining high grade recurrence-free (HGRF). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled from 33 US sites (n = 151 included in efficacy analyses). Median follow-up was 50.8 months (interquartile range 39.1-60.0), with 27% receiving ≥ 5 instillations and 7.6% receiving treatment for ≥ 57 months. Of patients with CIS 5.8% (95% CI 2.2-12.2) were HGRF at month 57, and 15% (95% CI 6.1-27.8) of patients with high-grade Ta/T1 were HGRF at month 57. Kaplan-Meier-estimated HGRF survival at 57 months was 13% (95% CI 6.9-21.5) and 33% (95% CI 19.5-46.6) in the CIS and Ta/T1 cohorts, respectively. Cystectomy-free survival at month 60 was 49% (95% CI 40.0-57.1): 43% (95% CI 32.2-53.7) in the CIS cohort and 59% (95% CI 43.1-71.4) in the Ta/T1 cohort. Overall survival at 60 months was 80% (71.0, 86.0): 76% (64.6-84.5) and 86% (70.9-93.5) in the CIS and Ta/T1 cohorts, respectively. Only 5 patients (4 with CIS and 1 with Ta/T1) experienced clinical progression to muscle-invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: At 60 months, nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg allowed bladder preservation in nearly half of the patients and proved to be a safe option for BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Complications of immuno-oncology care: what urologist should know.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a practical review of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may be encountered in uro-oncology patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a literature review of studies reporting irAEs including articles published through September 2023 for uro-oncology patients and the potential relevancy for the practicing urologist. RESULTS: Immunotherapy has revolutionised cancer treatment, extending its impact to urological malignancies including for patients with urothelial, kidney, and prostate cancers. Immuno-oncology (IO) compounds have achieved measurable and durable responses in these cancers. Urologists, choosing to administer or co-manage IO patient care, should be prepared to understand, evaluate, and treat irAEs. This review discusses the spectrum of irAEs that can be encountered. Ongoing trials are exploring the use of immunotherapy at earlier stages of uro-oncological diseases, thus underscoring the evolving landscape of urological cancer treatment. Paradoxically, some data suggests that the occurrence of irAEs is associated with improved oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Immune-related AEs, while manageable, may be life-threatening and require lifelong therapy. A thorough understanding of AEs and toxicity of a novel drug class is imperative.

Updates on Management of Biochemical Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) are a heterogeneous group, whereby a personalized approach to management is critical. Patients with high-risk features such as PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9-12 months warrant earlier imaging for metastasis detection and consideration for intensified therapy (beyond intermittent androgen deprivation alone) during this phase of BCR-only disease. The BCR phase represents a unique opportunity to impact disease survival and delay metastasis progression. There is compelling evidence from the EMBARK trial that ADT monotherapy is no longer the optimal consideration for high-risk BCR patients.

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).

CREST: phase III study of sasanlimab and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-naïve high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the standard of care for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). BCG in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors may yield greater anti-tumor activity compared with either agent alone. CREST is a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG for patients with BCG-naive high-risk NMIBC. Eligible participants are randomized to receive sasanlimab plus BCG (induction ± maintenance) or BCG alone for up to 25 cycles within 12 weeks of TURBT. The primary outcome is event-free survival. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy end points and safety. The target sample size is around 1000 participants.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common type of bladder cancer. Most people have surgery to remove the cancer cells while leaving the rest of the bladder intact. This is called transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT). For people with high-risk NMIBC, a medicine called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is placed directly inside the bladder after TURBT. A 'high risk' classification means that the cancer is more likely to spread or come back after treatment. Some people's cancer does not respond to BCG or returns after BCG treatment. Researchers are currently looking at whether BCG combined with other immunotherapies may prevent cancer growth more than BCG on its own. Immunotherapy helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. Sasanlimab is an immunotherapy medicine that is not yet approved to treat people with NMIBC. It is given as an injection under the skin. In this CREST study, researchers are looking at how safe and effective sasanlimab plus BCG is for people with high-risk NMIBC. Around 1000 people are taking part in CREST. They must have had TURBT 12 weeks or less before joining the study. Researchers want to know how long people live without certain events occurring, such as bladder cancer cells returning. A plain language summary of this article can be found as Supplementary Material. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04165317; 2019-003375-19 (EudraCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Oral Relugolix for Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., leuprolide) are the standard agents for achieving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer despite the initial testosterone surge and delay in therapeutic effect. The efficacy and safety of relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, as compared with those of leuprolide are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with advanced prostate cancer, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive relugolix (120 mg orally once daily) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng per deciliter) through 48 weeks. Secondary end points included noninferiority with respect to the primary end point, castrate levels of testosterone on day 4, and profound castrate levels (<20 ng per deciliter) on day 15. Testosterone recovery was evaluated in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received relugolix and 308 received leuprolide. Of men who received relugolix, 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9 to 97.9) maintained castration through 48 weeks, as compared with 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) of men receiving leuprolide. The difference of 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8) showed noninferiority and superiority of relugolix (P<0.001 for superiority). All other key secondary end points showed superiority of relugolix over leuprolide (P<0.001). The percentage of patients with castrate levels of testosterone on day 4 was 56.0% with relugolix and 0% with leuprolide. In the subgroup of 184 patients followed for testosterone recovery, the mean testosterone levels 90 days after treatment discontinuation were 288.4 ng per deciliter in the relugolix group and 58.6 ng per deciliter in the leuprolide group. Among all the patients, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.9% in the relugolix group and 6.2% in the leuprolide group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving men with advanced prostate cancer, relugolix achieved rapid, sustained suppression of testosterone levels that was superior to that with leuprolide, with a 54% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by Myovant Sciences; HERO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03085095.).

Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Survival with Darolutamide.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a structurally distinct androgen-receptor inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the planned primary analysis of a phase 3 trial, the median metastasis-free survival was significantly longer with darolutamide (40.4 months) than with placebo (18.4 months). The data for the analysis of overall survival were immature at the time of the primary analysis. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1509 men, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive darolutamide (955 patients) or placebo (554 patients) while they continued to receive androgen-deprivation therapy. After the results of the primary end-point analysis were found to be positive, unblinding of the treatment assignments occurred, and patients in the placebo group were permitted to cross over to receive open-label darolutamide treatment. At the time of this prespecified final analysis, which had been planned to be performed after approximately 240 deaths had occurred, overall survival and all other secondary end points were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 29.0 months. At the time of unblinding of the data, all 170 patients who were still receiving placebo crossed over to receive darolutamide; 137 patients who had discontinued placebo before unblinding had occurred received at least one other life-prolonging therapy. Overall survival at 3 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80 to 86) in the darolutamide group and 77% (95% CI, 72 to 81) in the placebo group. The risk of death was significantly lower, by 31%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.88; P = 0.003). Darolutamide was also associated with a significant benefit with respect to all other secondary end points, including the time to first symptomatic skeletal event and the time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The incidence of adverse events after the start of treatment was similar in the two groups; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, the percentage of patients who were alive at 3 years was significantly higher among those who received darolutamide than among those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer HealthCare and Orion Pharma; ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200614.).

Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review. RESULTS: In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).