A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat versus sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302).

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC. METHODS: KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .

Final Results from SAUL, a Single-arm International Study of Atezolizumab in Unselected Patients with Pretreated Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urinary Tract Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data. METHODS: The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities. PATIENT SUMMARY: The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years.

[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).

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

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.

NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma.

Background: There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. Methods: NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm. Results: A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

The Membrane Protein Sortilin Is a Potential Biomarker and Target for Glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating brain cancer with no effective treatment, and there is an urgent need for developing innovative biomarkers as well as therapeutic targets for better management of the disease. The membrane protein sortilin has recently been shown to participate in tumor cell invasiveness in several cancers, but its involvement and clinical relevance in GBM is unclear. In the present study, we explored the expression of sortilin and its potential as a clinical biomarker and therapeutic target for GBM. Sortilin expression was investigated by immunohistochemistry and digital quantification in a series of 71 clinical cases of invasive GBM vs. 20 non-invasive gliomas. Sortilin was overexpressed in GBM and, importantly, higher expression levels were associated with worse patient survival, pointing to sortilin tissue expression as a potential prognostic biomarker for GBM. Sortilin was also detectable in the plasma of GBM patients by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), but no differences were observed between sortilin levels in the blood of GBM vs. glioma patients. In vitro, sortilin was detected in 11 brain-cancer-patient-derived cell lines at the anticipated molecular weight of 100 kDa. Interestingly, targeting sortilin with the orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor AF38469 resulted in decreased GBM invasiveness, but cancer cell proliferation was not affected, showing that sortilin is targetable in GBM. Together, these data suggest the clinical relevance for sortilin in GBM and support further investigation of GBM as a clinical biomarker and therapeutic target.

Targeting XBP1 mRNA splicing sensitizes glioblastoma to chemotherapy.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor in adults. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the standard systemic therapy in GBM but has limited and restricted efficacy. Better treatments are urgently needed. The role of endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress) is increasingly described in GBM pathophysiology. A key molecular mediator of ER stress, the spliced form of the transcription factor x-box binding protein 1 (XBP1s) may constitute a novel therapeutic target; here we report XBP1s expression and biological activity in GBM. Tumor samples from patients with GBM (n = 85) and low-grade glioma (n = 20) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for XBP1s with digital quantification. XBP1s expression was significantly increased in GBM compared to low-grade gliomas. XBP1s mRNA showed upregulation by qPCR analysis in a panel of patient-derived GBM cell lines. Inhibition of XBP1 splicing using the small molecular inhibitor MKC-3946 significantly reduced GBM cell viability and potentiated the effect of TMZ in GBM cells, particularly in those with methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyl transferase gene promoter. GBM cells resistant to TMZ were also responsive to MKC-3946 and the long-term inhibitory effect of MKC-3946 was confirmed by colony formation assay. In conclusion, this data reveals that XBP1s is overexpressed in GBM and contributes to cancer cell growth. XBP1s warrants further investigation as a clinical biomarker and therapeutic target in GBM.

Patient outcomes following a response biomarker-guided approach to treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-I&T in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (Re-SPECT).

Background: 177LuPSMA is an effective treatment in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer with trials adopting a standardised dose interval. Adjusting treatment intervals utilising early response biomarkers may improve patient outcomes. Objective: This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) based on treatment interval adjustment utilising 177LuPSMA 24-h SPECT/CT (177Lu-SPECT) and early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. Design: Retrospective analysis of a clinical 177Lu-PSMA-I&T treatment programme. Methods: In all, 125 men were treated with 6-weekly 177LuPSMA-I&T [median 3 cycles, interquartile range (IQR): 2-4], median dose 8.0 GBq [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5-8.0]. Imaging screening involved 68GaPSMA-11 PET/diagnostic CT. 177Lu-SPECT/diagnostic CT was acquired following each therapy, and clinical assessments 3-weekly. Following dose 2 (week 6), a composite PSA and 177Lu-SPECT/CT imaging response [partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD)] determined ongoing management. Response group (RG) 1 (marked reduction in PSA/imaging PR) break in treatment until subsequent PSA rise, then re-treatment. RG 2 (stable or reduced PSA and/or imaging SD) 6-weekly treatments until six doses, or no longer clinically benefitting. RG 3 (rise in PSA and/or imaging PD) recommended for an alternative treatment. Results: Overall PSA50% response rate (PSARR) was 60% (75/125), median PSA-PFS 6.1 months (95%CI: 5.5-6.7), and median OS 16.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-20.1). 35% (41/116) were classified as RG 1, 34% (39/116) RG 2, and 31% (36/116) RG 3. PSARRs by RG were 95% (38/41), 74% (29/39), and 8% (3/36); median PSA-PFS rates were 12.1 months (95%CI: 9.3-17.4), 6.1 months (95%CI: 5.8-9.0), and 2.6 months (95%CI: 1.6-3.1); and OS rates were 19.2 months (95%CI: 16.8-20.7), 13.2 months (95%CI: 12.0-18.8), and 11.2 months (95%CI: 8.7-15.6) for RG 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median months of 'treatment holiday' for RG 1 was 6.1 months (IQR: 3.4-8.7). Nine men had received prior 177LuPSMA-617 and were retreated with 177LuPSMA-I&T, with a PSARR of 56% on re-treatment. Conclusion: Personalising dosing regimens using early response biomarkers with 177LuPSMA has the potential to achieve similar treatment responses to continuous dosing while allowing treatment breaks or intensification. Further evaluation of early response biomarker-guided treatment regimens in prospective trials is warranted. Plain Language Summary: Lutetium-PSMA therapy is a new therapy for metastatic prostate cancer that is well tolerated and effective. However, not all men respond equally, with some responding very well and others progressing early. Personalising treatments require tools that can accurately measure treatment responses, preferably early in the treatment course, so adjustments to treatment can be made. Lutetium-PSMA can measure tumour sites after each therapy by taking whole body 3D images at 24 h using a small radiation wave from the treatment itself. This is called a SPECT scan. Previous work has shown that both prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and changes in tumour volume on a SPECT scan can predict how patients will respond to treatment as early as dose 2. This study demonstrates that stratifying how men are treated based on the results of the 6-week SPECT scan and PSA response potentially allows a third of men to have break in treatment and that these men have both longer time to disease progression and OS. Men with an increase in tumour volume and increase in PSA early in treatment (6 weeks) had shorter time to disease progression and OS. Men with early biomarker disease progression were offered alternative treatments early in an attempt to allow the opportunity to allow a more effective potential therapy, if one was available. The study is an analysis of a clinical programme, and was not a prospective trial. As such, there are potential biases that could influence results. Hence, while the study is encouraging for the use of early response biomarkers to guide better treatment decisions, this must be validated in a well-designed clinical trial.

ProNGF Expression and Targeting in Glioblastoma Multiforme.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most lethal adult brain cancer. Temozolomide (TMZ), the standard chemotherapeutic drug used in GBM, has limited benefit and alternate therapies are needed to improve GBM treatment. Nerve growth factor (NGF) and its precursor proNGF are increasingly recognized as stimulators of human tumor progression. The expression and stimulatory effect of NGF on GBM cell growth has previously been reported, but the status of proNGF in GBM is unreported. In this study, we have investigated proNGF expression and biological activity in GBM. A clinical cohort of GBM (n = 72) and low-grade glioma (n = 20) was analyzed by immunohistochemistry for proNGF and digital quantification. ProNGF expression was significantly increased in GBM compared to low grade gliomas and proNGF was also detected in patient plasma samples. ProNGF was also detected in most GBM cell lines by Western blotting. Although anti-proNGF blocking antibodies inhibited cell growth in GBM cells with methylated MGMT gene promoter, targeting proNGF could not potentiate the efficacy of TMZ. In subcutaneous xenograft of human GBM cells, anti-proNGF antibodies slightly reduced tumor volume but had no impact on TMZ efficacy. In conclusion, this data reveals that proNGF is overexpressed in GBM and can stimulate cancer cell growth. The potential of proNGF as a clinical biomarker and therapeutic target warrants further investigations.

Depatuxizumab mafodotin in EGFR-amplified newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A phase III randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed glioblastomas (GBMs) harbor epidermal growth factor receptor gene amplification (EGFR-amp). Preclinical and early-phase clinical data suggested efficacy of depatuxizumab mafodotin (depatux-m), an antibody-drug conjugate comprised of a monoclonal antibody that binds activated EGFR (overexpressed wild-type and EGFRvIII-mutant) linked to a microtubule-inhibitor toxin in EGFR-amp GBMs. METHODS: In this phase III trial, adults with centrally confirmed, EGFR-amp newly diagnosed GBM were randomized 1:1 to radiotherapy, temozolomide, and depatux-m/placebo. Corneal epitheliopathy was treated with a combination of protocol-specified prophylactic and supportive measures. There was 85% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) ≤0.75 for overall survival (OS) at a 2.5% 1-sided significance level (ie traditional two-sided p ≤ 0.05) by log-rank testing. RESULTS: There were 639 randomized patients (median age 60, range 22-84; 62% men). Prespecified interim analysis found no improvement in OS for depatux-m over placebo (median 18.9 vs. 18.7 months, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.26, 1-sided p = 0.63). Progression-free survival was longer for depatux-m than placebo (median 8.0 vs. 6.3 months; HR 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.01, p = 0.029), particularly among those with EGFRvIII-mutant (median 8.3 vs. 5.9 months, HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, 1-sided p = 0.002) or MGMT unmethylated (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97; 1-sided p = 0.012) tumors but without an OS improvement. Corneal epitheliopathy occurred in 94% of depatux-m-treated patients (61% grade 3-4), causing 12% to discontinue. CONCLUSIONS: Interim analysis demonstrated no OS benefit for depatux-m in treating EGFR-amp newly diagnosed GBM. No new important safety risks were identified.

Chemoradiotherapy with concurrent durvalumab for the palliative treatment of oligometastatic oesophageal and gastrooesophageal carcinoma with dysphagia: a single arm phase II clinical trial (PALEO, sponsored by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group).

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal and gastrooesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinoma frequently present with dysphagia and de novo metastatic disease. There is scope to improve treatment paradigms to both address symptoms and improve survival. One method is integrating immune checkpoint inhibition with novel treatment combinations. METHODS: PALEO is a single arm, phase II clinical trial in patients with previously untreated, oligometastatic or locoregionally advanced oesophageal or GOJ carcinoma and dysphagia. PALEO is sponsored by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG). Participants receive 2 weeks of therapy with concurrent hypofractionated radiotherapy of 30Gy in 10 fractions to the primary tumour, weekly carboplatin AUC2, weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 and durvalumab 1500 mg q4 weekly, followed by durvalumab monotherapy continuing at 1500 mg q4weekly until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or 24 months of therapy. A single metastasis is treated with stereotactic radiotherapy of 24Gy in 3 fractions in week 7. The trial primary endpoint is the progression free survival rate at 6 months. Secondary endpoints include duration of dysphagia relief, nutritional status change, quality of life, response rate, toxicity, progression free survival and overall survival. The tertiary endpoint is prediction of outcome based on biomarkers identified from patient serial blood samples collected pre- and post-radiotherapy. DISCUSSION: This unique investigator-initiated clinical trial is designed to simultaneously address the clinically relevant problems of dysphagia and distant disease control. The overarching aims are to improve patient nutrition, quality of life and survival with low toxicity therapy. AGITG PALEO is a multidisciplinary collaboration and will add to the understanding of the relationship between radiotherapy and the anti-tumour immune response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619001371189 , registered 8 October 2019.

Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA): protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial for people affected by glioblastoma.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system cancer in adults. The objective of the Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA) trial is to test hypotheses in real world setting to improve survival of people with GBM. Initial experimental arms are evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). This study will compare maximal surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months with the addition of (1) 'neoadjuvant' chemotherapy beginning as soon as possible after surgery and/or (2) adjuvant chemotherapy continued until progression within the same study platform. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MAGMA will establish a platform for open-label, multiarm, multicentre randomised controlled testing of treatments for GBM. The study began recruiting in September 2020 and recruitment to the initial two interventions in MAGMA is expected to continue until September 2023.Adults aged ≥18 years with ndGBM will be given the option of undergoing randomisation to each study intervention separately, thereby giving rise to a partial factorial design, with two separate randomisation time points, one for neoadjuvant therapy and one for extended therapy. Patients will have the option of being randomised at each time point or continuing on with standard treatment.The primary outcome for the study is overall survival from the date of initial surgery until death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, time to first non-temozolomide treatment, overall survival from each treatment randomisation, clinically significant toxicity as measured by grade 3 or 4 adverse events and health-related quality-of-life measures. Tertiary outcomes are predictive/prognostic biomarkers and health utilities and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The primary analysis of overall survival will be performed separately for each study intervention according to the intention to treat principle on all patients randomised to each study intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study (Protocol version 2.0 dated 23 November 2020) was approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Sydney Local Health District: 2019/ETH13297). The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000048987.

Olaparib tolerability and common adverse-event management in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Further analyses from the PROfound study.

BACKGROUND: Based on PROfound, olaparib is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following disease progression on at least enzalutamide or abiraterone and who carry relevant alterations in DNA repair genes. To facilitate continued olaparib treatment as long as the patient derives benefit, we describe further safety assessments from PROfound focusing on the four most common adverse events (AEs) and events of special interest. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or control (enzalutamide or abiraterone) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was assessed through AE reporting and laboratory assessments. Safety data were also collected from all patients in the control group who experienced radiographic disease progression and subsequently crossed over to olaparib treatment. RESULTS: 256 patients received olaparib and 130 control. Incidence rates for the four most commonly occurring AEs in the olaparib group (all-causality) were anaemia 50%, nausea 43%, fatigue/asthenia 42% and decreased appetite 31%. All were mostly Grade 1 and 2 and all peaked within the first 2 months of treatment as the events were managed where appropriate, primarily with dose interruptions or dose reductions. The extent of bone metastases at baseline or prior taxane use was not associated with the rate of anaemia. Pneumonitis was reported in 2% and 1.5% of patients in the olaparib and control groups, respectively, and one patient (0.4%) in the olaparib group experienced an event of MDS/AML after a 30-day follow-up period. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8% of olaparib and 3% of control patients. CONCLUSIONS: The four most common AEs observed in PROfound were generally manageable without the need for treatment discontinuation, allowing patients to remain on treatment for as long as they were deriving clinical benefit. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration number: NCT02987543.

Find the path of least resistance: Adaptive therapy to delay treatment failure and improve outcomes.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies help people with advanced cancers, but for most, treatment fails. Cancer heterogeneity is one cause of treatment failure, but also suggests an opportunity to improve outcomes; reconceptualising cancer therapy as an ecological problem offers the strategy of adaptive therapy. If an agent is active against a patient's cancer, instead of traditional continuous dosing at the maximum tolerated dose until treatment failure, the patient and their oncologist may instead choose to pause treatment as soon as the cancer responds. When tumour burden increases, the cancer is rechallenged with the same agent in hope of delivering another response, ideally before symptoms occur or quality-of-life is impacted. These 'loops' of 'pause/restart' allows an active treatment to be used strategically, to delay the development of evolutionary selection within the cancer, delaying the onset of treatment resistance, controlling the cancer for longer. Modelling predicts patients can navigate several 'loops', potentially increasing the utility of an active treatment by multiples, and early trials suggest at least doubling of progression-free survival. In this narrative review we confront how cancer heterogeneity limits treatment effectiveness, re-examine cancer as an ecological problem, review the data supporting adaptive therapy and outline the challenges and opportunities faced in clinical practice to implement this evolutionary concept. In an era where multiple novel active anti-neoplastic agents are being used with ancient inflexibile maximum tolerated dose for maximum duration approaches, adaptive dosing offers a personalised, n = 1 approach to cancer therapy selection.

Tumor Genomic Testing for >4,000 Men with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in the Phase III Trial PROfound (Olaparib).

PURPOSE: Successful implementation of genomic testing in clinical practice is critical for identification of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) eligible for olaparib and future molecularly targeted therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An investigational clinical trial assay, based on the FoundationOneCDx tissue test, was used to prospectively identify patients with qualifying homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the phase III PROfound study. Evaluation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tissue test outcome against preanalytic parameters was performed to identify key factors influencing NGS result generation. RESULTS: A total of 4,858 tissue samples from 4,047 patients were tested and reported centrally. NGS results were obtained in 58% (2,792/4,858) of samples (69% of patients). Of samples submitted, 83% were primary tumor samples (96% were archival and 4% newly obtained). Almost 17% were metastatic tumor samples (60% were archival and 33% newly obtained). NGS results were generated more frequently from newly obtained compared with archival samples (63.9% vs. 56.9%) and metastatic compared with primary samples (63.9% vs. 56.2%). Although generation of an NGS result declined with increasing sample age, approximately 50% of samples ages >10 years generated results. While higher tumor content and DNA yield resulted in greater success in obtaining NGS results, other factors, including selection and preservation of samples, may also have had an impact. CONCLUSIONS: The PROfound study shows that tissue testing to identify homologous recombination repair alterations is feasible and that high-quality tumor tissue samples are key to obtaining NGS results and identifying patients with mCRPC who may benefit from olaparib treatment.

What matters for people with brain cancer? Selecting clinical quality indicators for an Australian Brain Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: The goal of a clinical quality registry is to deliver immediate gains in survival and quality of life by delivering timely feedback to practitioners, thereby ensuring every patient receives the best existing treatment. We are developing an Australian Brain Cancer Registry (ABCR) to identify, describe, and measure the impact of the variation and gaps in brain cancer care from the time of diagnosis to the end of life. METHODS: To determine a set of clinical quality indicators (CQIs) for the ABCR, a database and internet search were used to identify relevant guidelines, which were then assessed for quality using the AGREE II Global Rating Scale. Potential indicators were extracted from 21 clinical guidelines, ranked using a modified Delphi process completed in 2 rounds by a panel of experts and other stakeholders, and refined by a multidisciplinary Working Group. RESULTS: Nineteen key quality reporting domains were chosen, specified by 57 CQIs detailing the specific inclusion and outcome characteristics to be reported. CONCLUSION: The selected CQIs will form the basis for the ABCR, provide a framework for achievable data collection, and specify best practices for patients and health care providers, with a view to improving care for brain cancer patients. To our knowledge, the systematic and comprehensive approach we have taken is a world first in selecting the reporting specifications for a brain cancer clinical registry.

177Lu-PSMA-617 and Idronoxil in Men with End-Stage Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (LuPIN): Patient Outcomes and Predictors of Treatment Response in a Phase I/II Trial.

177Lu-PSMA-617 is an effective therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, treatment resistance occurs frequently, and combination therapies may improve outcomes. We report the final safety and efficacy results of a phase I/II study combining 177Lu-PSMA-617 with idronoxil (NOX66), a radiosensitizer, and examine potential clinical, blood-based, and imaging biomarkers. Methods: Fifty-six men with progressive mCRPC previously treated with taxane chemotherapy and novel androgen signaling inhibitor (ASI) were enrolled. Patients received up to 6 doses of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.5 GBq) on day 1 in combination with a NOX66 suppository on days 1-10 of each 6-wk cycle. Cohort 1 (n = 8) received 400 mg of NOX66, cohort 2 (n = 24) received 800 mg, and cohort 3 (n = 24) received 1,200 mg. 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-FDG PET/CT were performed at study entry, and semiquantitative imaging analysis was undertaken. Blood samples were collected for analysis of blood-based biomarkers, including androgen receptor splice variant 7 expression. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability; secondary outcomes included efficacy, pain scores, and xerostomia. Regression analyses were performed to explore the prognostic value of baseline clinical, blood-based, and imaging parameters. Results: Fifty-six of the 100 men screened were enrolled (56%), with a screening failure rate of 26% (26/100) for PET imaging criteria. All men had received prior treatment with ASI and docetaxel, and 95% (53/56) had received cabazitaxel. Ninety-six percent (54/56) of patients received at least 2 cycles of combination NOX66 and 177Lu-PSMA-617, and 46% (26/56) completed 6 cycles. Common adverse events were anemia, fatigue, and xerostomia. Anal irritation attributable to NOX66 occurred in 38%. Forty-eight of 56 had a reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (86%; 95% CI, 74%-94%); 34 of 56 (61%; 95% CI, 47%-74%) had a PSA reduction of at least 50%. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.5 mo (95% CI, 5.9-9 mo), and median overall survival was 19.7 mo (95% CI, 9.5-30 mo). A higher PSMA SUVmean correlated with treatment response, whereas a higher PSMA tumor volume and prior treatment with ASI for less than 12 mo were associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion: NOX66 with 177Lu-PSMA-617 is a safe and feasible strategy in men being treated with third-line therapy and beyond for mCRPC. PSMA SUVmean, PSMA-avid tumor volume, and duration of treatment with ASI were independently associated with outcome.