Bone Biomarkers and Subsequent Survival in Men with Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from the SWOG S1216 Phase 3 Trial of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with or Without Orteronel.

BACKGROUND: Bone biomarkers are strongly prognostic for overall survival (OS) in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer but not fully established for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). OBJECTIVE: Bone biomarkers in HSPC were prospectively evaluated as part of a phase 3 study of androgen deprivation therapy ± the CYP17 inhibitor orteronel. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were randomly divided into training (n = 316) and validation (n = 633) sets. Recursive partitioning and Cox proportional hazard models were employed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Bone resorption (C-telopeptide and pyridinoline) and bone formation markers (C-terminal collagen propeptide and bone alkaline phosphatase) were assessed from patient sera. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1279 men, 949 had evaluable baseline bone biomarkers. Optimal cutoffs were identified to define elevated levels of each of the four biomarkers (all p < 0.05) that were associated with worse OS. After adjusting for clinical risk factors in the validation set, elevated bone biomarkers were statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratios ranging from 1.37 to 1.92). Recursive partitioning algorithms applied to the training set identified three risk groups (low, intermediate, and poor) with differential OS outcomes (median OS: 8.2, 5.1, and 2.1 yr, respectively) based on combinations of bone biomarkers. These results were confirmed in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: In men with HSPC initiating androgen deprivation therapy, bone biomarkers are strongly and independently prognostic for OS. Bone biomarker levels alone or in combination with clinical covariates identify unique subsets of men with differential OS outcomes. These results validate the clinical value of bone biomarker assessment in the HSPC state, extending bone biomarker utility beyond the castration-resistant state. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, high levels of bone turnover biomarkers are associated with a shorter lifespan.

Health-related quality of life and pain outcomes with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care versus standard of care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (VISION): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In VISION, the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (vipivotide tetraxetan) improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival when added to protocol-permitted standard of care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report additional health-related quality of life (HRQOL), pain, and symptomatic skeletal event results. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was conducted at 84 cancer centres in nine countries in North America and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had progressive PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0-2; and had previously received of at least one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and one or two taxane-containing regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus protocol-permitted standard of care ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group) or standard of care alone (control group) using permuted blocks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration, liver metastases, ECOG performance status, and androgen receptor pathway inhibitor inclusion in standard of care. Patients in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group received intravenous infusions of 7·4 gigabecquerel (GBq; 200 millicurie [mCi]) [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6 weeks for four cycles plus two optional additional cycles. Standard of care included approved hormonal treatments, bisphosphonates, and radiotherapy. The alternate primary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, which have been reported. Here we report the key secondary endpoint of time to first symptomatic skeletal event, and other secondary endpoints of HRQOL assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D-5L, and pain assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF). Patient-reported outcomes and symptomatic skeletal events were analysed in all patients who were randomly assigned after implementation of measures designed to reduce the dropout rate in the control group (on or after March 5, 2019), and safety was analysed according to treatment received in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03511664, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2018, and Oct 23, 2019, 831 patients were enrolled, of whom 581 were randomly assigned to the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group (n=385) or control group (n=196) on or after March 5, 2019, and were included in analyses of HRQOL, pain, and time to first symptomatic skeletal event. The median age of patients was 71 years (IQR 65-75) in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 72·0 years (66-76) in the control group. Median time to first symptomatic skeletal event or death was 11·5 months (95% CI 10·3-13·2) in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 6·8 months (5·2-8·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·40-0·62). Time to worsening was delayed in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group versus the control group for FACT-P score (HR 0·54, 0·45-0·66) and subdomains, BPI-SF pain intensity score (0·52, 0·42-0·63), and EQ-5D-5L utility score (0·65, 0·54-0·78). Grade 3 or 4 haematological adverse events included decreased haemoglobin (80 [15%] of 529 assessable patients who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care vs 13 [6%] of 205 who received standard of care only), lymphocyte concentrations (269 [51%] vs 39 [19%]), and platelet counts (49 [9%] vs five [2%]). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care (pancytopenia [n=2], bone marrow failure [n=1], subdural haematoma [n=1], and intracranial haemorrhage [n=1]) and no patients who received standard of care only. INTERPRETATION: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care delayed time to worsening in HRQOL and time to skeletal events compared with standard of care alone. These findings support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and taxane treatment. FUNDING: Advanced Accelerator Applications (Novartis).

Phase III Study of Pemetrexed in Combination With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing malignancy with a median survival time of 6 to 9 months, have previously responded poorly to chemotherapy. We conducted a phase III trial to determine whether treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin results in survival time superior to that achieved with cisplatin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were not eligible for curative surgery were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both regimens were given intravenously every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were assigned: 226 received pemetrexed and cisplatin, 222 received cisplatin alone, and eight never received therapy. Median survival time in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm was 12.1 months versus 9.3 months in the control arm (P = .020, two-sided log-rank test). The hazard ratio for death of patients in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus those in the control arm was 0.77. Median time to progression was significantly longer in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm: 5.7 months versus 3.9 months (P = .001). Response rates were 41.3% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus 16.7% in the control arm (P < .0001). After 117 patients had enrolled, folic acid and vitamin B12 were added to reduce toxicity, resulting in a significant reduction in toxicities in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and vitamin supplementation resulted in superior survival time, time to progression, and response rates compared with treatment with cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 significantly reduced toxicity without adversely affecting survival time.

First-in-human, phase 1 study of PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (VBIR), in non-metastatic hormone-sensitive biochemical recurrence and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study evaluated PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (PrCa VBIR), in two clinical states of prostate cancer (PC), metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: For dose escalation, patients with mCRPC received intramuscular PrCa VBIR (adenovirus vector and plasmid DNA expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)) with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, tremelimumab 40 or 80 mg with or without sasanlimab 130 or 300 mg, both subcutaneous). For dose expansion, patients with mCRPC received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg and sasanlimab 300 mg; patients with BCR received PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg (Cohort 1B-BCR) or tremelimumab 80 mg plus sasanlimab 130 mg (Cohort 5B-BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated in dose escalation (mCRPC=38) and expansion (BCR=35, mCRPC=18). Overall, treatment-related and immune-related adverse events occurred in 64 (70.3%) and 39 (42.9%) patients, with fatigue (40.7%), influenza-like illness (30.8%), diarrhea (23.1%), and immune-related thyroid dysfunction (19.8%) and rash (15.4%), as the most common. In patients with mCRPC, the objective response rate (ORR, 95% CI) was 5.6% (1.2% to 15.4%) and the median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 5.6 (3.5 to not estimable) months for all; the ORR was 16.7% (3.6% to 41.4%) and 6-month rPFS rate was 45.5% (24.9% to 64.1%) for those who received RP2D with measurable disease (n=18). 7.4% of patients with mCRPC achieved a ≥50% decline in baseline PSA (PSA-50), with a median duration of 4.6 (1.2-45.2) months. In patients with BCR, 9 (25.7%) achieved PSA-50; the median duration of PSA response was 3.9 (1.9-4.2) and 10.1 (6.9-28.8) months for Cohorts 5B-BCR and 1B-BCR. Overall, antigen specific T-cell response was 88.0% to PSMA, 84.0% to PSA, and 80.0% to PSCA. CONCLUSIONS: PrCa VBIR overall demonstrated safety signals similar to other ICI combination trials; significant side effects were seen in some patients with BCR. It stimulated antigen-specific immunity across all cohorts and resulted in modest antitumor activity in patients with BCR without using ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616185.

Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Current Treatment Era.

Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) agents and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data on real-world usage and outcomes are limited. Objective: To examine real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for mRCC. Design setting and participants: This retrospective cohort study included 1538 patients with mRCC who received first-line treatment with pembrolizumab + axitinib (P + A; n = 279, 18%), ipilimumab + nivolumab (I + N; n = 618, 40%), or TKI monotherapy (TKIm; cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib, or axitinib; n = 641, 42%) between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2020 in US Oncology Network/non-network practices. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The relationship with outcomes, time on treatment (ToT), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. Results and limitations: The median age of the cohort was 67 yr (interquartile range 59.5-74.4), 70% were male, 79% had clear cell RCC, and 87% had an intermediate or poor International mRCC Database Consortium risk score. The median ToT was 13.6 for P + A versus 5.8 for I + N versus 3.4 mo for TKIm (p < 0.001) and the median TTNT was 16.4 for P + A versus 8.3 for I + N versus 8.4 mo for TKIm (p < 0.001) . Median OS was not reached for P + A, 27.6 mo for I + N, and 26.9 mo for TKIm (p = 0.237). On adjusted multivariable analysis, treatment with P + A was associated with better ToT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.72 vs I + N; 0.37, 95% CI, 0.30-0.45 vs TKIm; p < 0.0001) and better TTNT (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.77 vs I + N; 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67 vs TKIm; p < 0.0001). Limitations include the retrospective design and the limited follow-up for characterization of survival. Conclusions: We noted substantial uptake of IO-based therapies in the first-line community oncology setting since their approval. In addition, the study provides insights into clinical effectiveness, tolerability, and/or compliance of IO-based therapies. Patient summary: We examined the use of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer. The findings suggest rapid implementation of these new treatments by oncologists working in the community setting, which is reassuring for patients with this disease.

EphrinB2 Inhibition and Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have poor prognosis after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy. Immune check point programmed death 1-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies have low response rates and thus there exists a major unmet need. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial, patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma that recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy received soluble EphB4-human serum albumin (sEphB4-HSA) in combination with pembrolizumab. The primary end points were tolerability and overall survival (OS). The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and toxicity. The expression of sEphB4-HSA target EphrinB2 was correlated with outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled. The median follow up was 22.9 months (range, 1.3-54.7). The regimen had acceptable toxicity. In the intent-to-treat analysis (N = 70), the median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 21.5). Twenty-six (37%) patients had an objective response (95% CI, 26 to 48). The median PFS was 4.1 (95% CI, 1.5 to 5.7) months. Forty-six (66%) patients expressed EphrinB2, and among them, the median OS was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.4 to not reached), the ORR was 52% (95% CI, 37 to 67), including a complete response rate of 24% (11 of 46; 95% CI, 12 to 36). The median PFS was 5.7 (95% CI, 2.7 to 27.9) months. Response was maintained at 6, 12, and 24 months in 88%, 74%, and 69% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of sEphB4-HSA and pembrolizumab appears synergistic with improved OS and ORR compared with historical data for programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 monotherapy.

Emergence of BRCA Reversion Mutations in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer After Treatment with Rucaparib.

BACKGROUND: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutated (BRCA+) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BRCA reversion mutations are a known mechanism of acquired resistance to PARP inhibitors in multiple cancer types, although their impact and prevalence in mCRPC remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of BRCA reversion mutations in the plasma of patients with BRCA+ mCRPC after progression on rucaparib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with BRCA+ mCRPC enrolled in Trial of Rucaparib in Prostate Indications 2 (TRITON2) were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected at the end of treatment after confirmed progression before May 5, 2020, was queried for BRCA reversion mutations using next-generation sequencing (NGS). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The association of clinical efficacy and postprogression genomics was measured in 100 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: No baseline BRCA reversion mutations were observed in 100 BRCA+ patients. NGS identified somatic BRCA reversion mutations in 39% (39/100) of patients after progression. Reversion rates were similar for BRCA2 and BRCA1, irrespective of germline or somatic status, but higher in samples with a high tumor DNA fraction. Most patients with reversions (74%, 29/39) had two or more reversion mutations occurring subclonally at lower allele frequencies than the original BRCA mutations. The incidence of BRCA reversion mutations increased with the duration of rucaparib treatment. The frequency of reversion mutations was higher in patients with an objective (58%) or a prostate-specific antigen (69%) response compared with those without either (39% and 29%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BRCA reversion mutations are a significant mechanism of acquired resistance to rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC, with evidence of subclonal convergence promoting systemic resistance. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with BRCA mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in TRITON2 were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected after radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression before May 5, 2020, was analyzed by next-generation sequencing and queried for BRCA reversion mutations.

An economic evaluation of cabazitaxel versus a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA: the United States payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel significantly improves clinical outcomes compared with a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA (abiraterone or enzalutamide), as demonstrated in the CARD trial (NCT02485691). We aimed to estimate healthcare costs avoided with the use of cabazitaxel as a third-line (3 L) treatment versus a second ARTA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Model inputs were based on the CARD trial, published sources, and estimates of typical clinical care patterns by genitourinary oncologists (n = 3). Assessed time points were 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and overall survival (OS); hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and costs (reported in 2020 US dollar [USD] and converted into Euro) to manage symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life care. RESULTS: At 18 months, in a cohort of 100 patients, the use of cabazitaxel was estimated to result in 9 more patients achieving rPFS, 2 more patients achieving PFS, and 17 more survivors versus a second ARTA. The costs of SSEs, AEs, and end-of-life care were $498,909 (€424,073), $276,198 (€234,768), and $808,785 (€687,468), respectively, for cabazitaxel and $627,569 (€533,434), $251,124 (€213,455), and $1,028,294 (€874,050), respectively, for a second ARTA. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be associated with a 21% reduction in both SSE management and end-of-life care costs. Hospitalization cost was $1,442,870 (€1,226,440) for cabazitaxel and $1,728,394 (€1,469,135) for a second ARTA, representing an estimated 17% reduction in these costs. Cabazitaxel, as compared with a second ARTA, was associated with 58 fewer hospitalization days and 2 fewer ICU days and was estimated to avoid $323,095 (€274,630, 17%) in total costs, driven by SSEs management and end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: The use of cabazitaxel as a 3 L treatment after docetaxel and an ARTA in patients with mCRPC is estimated to result in clinical benefits (longer rPFS, PFS, and OS) and lower healthcare resource utilization (fewer hospitalization and ICU days), compared with a second ARTA.

Lower Fracture Rates in Patients Treated with Radium-223, Abiraterone or Enzalutamide, When Given Concurrently with Bone Health Agents: A Real-World Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial ERA223 demonstrated an increased fracture rate and no survival advantage for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients on Radium-223 (Ra-223) with abiraterone, leading to regulatory restrictions on combination therapy. However, less than half of trial patients received bone health agents (BHA). We reviewed electronic health record (EHR) data evaluating fracture rates for patients on BHA receiving Ra-223, androgen deprivation therapy and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cohort analysis of EHR data of mCRPC patients on Ra-223 treated at a single community center by a single provider between 2010 and 2018. The primary objective was evaluating fracture rates for patients on BHA receiving Ra-223 and abiraterone. We conducted a secondary analysis for enzalutamide. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients received Ra-223 concurrently with abiraterone or enzalutamide between November 2010 and August 2018. The median age was 73 at first Ra-223 dose (range 40-93). The median follow-up time from last Ra-223 dose was 30 months (range 2-106). One hundred sixty-four patients (93%) received BHAs. One hundred fifty-nine patients (89%) were on a BHA before and/or during Ra-223. Sixty-seven patients received denosumab (38%), 63 received zoledronic acid (36%), and 29 received both nonconcurrently (16%). Eleven patients (6.2%) experienced a fracture after starting Ra-223, 9 of which occurred while on prior and/or concurrent BHA. We observed a 5.7% fracture rate for mCRPC patients who received combination therapy and denosumab or zoledronic acid. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis demonstrating a low fracture rate in patients with mCRPC receiving a BHA while on Ra-223 and abiraterone or enzalutamide may inform current clinical practice.

Association between baseline body mass index and survival in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ECOG-ACRIN CHAARTED E3805.

BACKGROUND: E3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study. METHODS: We performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival. RESULTS: In 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.63, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: There was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

Orteronel for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Trial (SWOG-1216).

PURPOSE: Orteronel (TAK-700) is a nonsteroidal 17,20-lyase inhibitor suppressing androgen synthesis. We evaluated the clinical benefit of orteronel when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label randomized phase III study, patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to ADT with orteronel (300 mg oral twice daily; experimental arm) or ADT with bicalutamide (50 mg oral once daily; control arm). The primary objective was the comparison of overall survival (OS), targeting a 33% improvement in median survival. A stratified log-rank test with a one-sided P ≤ .022 would indicate statistical significance. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 7 months (≤ 0.2 v 0.2 to ≤ 4 v > 4 ng/mL), and adverse event profile. RESULTS: Among 1,279 patients included in the analysis, 638 were randomly assigned to the ADT plus orteronel arm and 641 to the control arm. The median age was 68 years; 49% had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, there was a significant improvement in PFS (median 47.6 v 23.0 months, hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67; P < .0001) and PSA response at 7 months (P < .0001), but not in OS (median 81.1 v 70.2 months, hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .040, one-sided). More grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in the experimental versus the control arms (43% v 14%). Postprotocol life-prolonging therapy was received by 77.4% of patients in the control arm and 61.3% of patients in the orteronel arm. CONCLUSION: The study did not meet the primary end point of improved OS with orteronel. The lack of correlation of PFS and PSA response with OS raises concerns over assumption of their consistent surrogacy for OS in the context of extensive postprotocol therapy in this setting.

Dual checkpoint targeting of B7-H3 and PD-1 with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors: interim results from a multicenter phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)-targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. METHODS: In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3-15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]-naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02475213.

Putative Biomarkers of Clinical Benefit With Pembrolizumab in Advanced Urothelial Cancer: Results from the KEYNOTE-045 and KEYNOTE-052 Landmark Trials.

PURPOSE: In an exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), tumor mutational burden (TMB), T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP), and stromal signature with outcomes of pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma (UC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced UC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in the single-arm phase II KEYNOTE-052 trial (NCT02335424) and salvage pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel/vinflunine) in the randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial (NCT02256436). The association of each biomarker (continuous variable) with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using logistic regression (ORR) and Cox PH (PFS, OS), adjusted for ECOG PS; nominal P values were calculated without multiplicity adjustment (one-sided, pembrolizumab; two-sided, chemotherapy). Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05. RESULTS: In KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1, TMB, and TcellinfGEP were significantly associated with improved outcomes; stromal signature was significantly associated with worse outcomes. In KEYNOTE-045, although findings for TMB and TcellinfGEP with pembrolizumab were consistent with those of KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1 was not significantly associated with improved outcomes, nor was stromal signature associated with worse outcomes with pembrolizumab; chemotherapy was not associated with outcomes in a consistent manner for any of the biomarkers. Hazard ratio (HR) estimates at prespecified cutoffs showed an advantage for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 or TMB, with a trend toward lower HRs in the combined positive score ≥10 and the TMB ≥175 mutation/exome subgroup. For TcellinfGEP, PFS and OS HRs were lower in the TcellinfGEP-nonlow subgroup regardless of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple biomarkers characterizing the tumor microenvironment may help predict response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in UC, and potential clinical utility of these biomarkers may be context-dependent.

Polypharmacy, Potentially Inappropriate Medications, and Drug-Drug Interactions in Vulnerable Older Adults With Advanced Cancer Initiating Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults starting cancer treatment and associated with potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), potential drug-drug interactions (DDI), and drug-cancer treatment interactions (DCI). For a large cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, we describe patterns of prescription and nonprescription medication usage, the prevalence of PIM, and the prevalence, severity, and type of DDI/DCI. METHODS: This secondary analysis used baseline data from a randomized study enrolling patients aged ≥70 years with advanced cancer starting a new systemic cancer treatment (University of Rochester Cancer Center [URCC] 13059; PI: Mohile). PIM were categorized using 2019 Beers criteria and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions. Potential DDI/DCI were evaluated using Lexi-Interact Online. Medication classification followed the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical system. Bivariate associations were evaluated between sociodemographic and geriatric assessment (GA) measures and medication measures. Chord diagrams and network analysis were used to understand and describe DDI/DCI. RESULTS: Among 718 patients (mean age 77.6 years), polypharmacy (≥5 medications), excessive polypharmacy (≥10 medications), and ≥1 PIM were identified in 61.3%,14.5%, and 67.1%, respectively. Cardiovascular medications were the most prevalent (47%), and nonprescription medications accounted for 26% of total medications and 40% of PIM. One-quarter of patients had ≥1 potential major DDI not involving cancer treatment, and 5.4% had ≥1 potential major DCI. Each additional medication increased the odds of a potential major DDI and DCI by 39% and 12%, respectively. Polypharmacy and PIM are associated with multiple GA domains. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, polypharmacy, PIM, and potential DDI/DCI are very common. Nonprescription medications are frequently PIMs and/or involved in potential DDI/DCI.

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy, Docetaxel, and Prednisone vs Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The VIABLE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. RESULTS: A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111577.

Serial ctDNA analysis predicts clinical progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Targeted sequencing of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a promising tool to monitor dynamic changes in the variant allele frequencies (VAF) of genomic alterations and predict clinical outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS: We performed targeted sequencing of 182 serial ctDNA samples from 53 patients with advanced UC. RESULTS: Serial ctDNA-derived metrics predicted the clinical outcomes in patients with advanced UC. Combining serial ctDNA aggregate VAF (aVAF) values with clinical factors, including age, sex, and liver metastasis, improved the performance of prognostic models. An increase of the ctDNA aVAF by ≥1 in serial ctDNA samples predicted disease progression within 6 months in 90% of patients. The majority of patients with aVAFs ≤0.7 in three consecutive ctDNA samples achieved durable clinical responses (≥6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Serial ctDNA analysis predicts disease progression and enables dynamic monitoring to guide precision medicine in patients with advanced UC.

Using Geriatric Assessment to Guide Conversations Regarding Comorbidities Among Older Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Older patients with advanced cancer often have comorbidities that can worsen their cancer and treatment outcomes. We assessed how a geriatric assessment (GA)-guided intervention can guide conversations about comorbidities among patients, oncologists, and caregivers. METHODS: This secondary analysis arose from a nationwide, multisite cluster-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443). Eligible patients were ≥ 70 years, had advanced cancer (solid tumors or lymphoma), and had impairment in at least one GA domain (not including polypharmacy). Oncology practices (n = 30) were randomly assigned to usual care or intervention. All patients completed a GA; in the intervention arm, a GA summary with recommendations was provided to their oncologist. Patients completed an Older Americans Resources and Services Comorbidity questionnaire at screening. The clinical encounter following GA was audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for topics related to comorbidities. Linear mixed models examined the effect of the intervention on the outcomes adjusting for practice site as a random effect. RESULTS: Patients (N = 541) were 76.6 ± 5.2 years old; 94.6% of patients had at least one comorbidity with an average of 3.2 ± 1.9. The intervention increased the average number of conversations regarding comorbidities per patient from 0.52 to 0.99 (P < .01). Moreover, there were a greater number of concerns acknowledged (0.52 v 0.32; P = .03) and there was a 2.4-times higher odds of having comorbidity concerns addressed via referral, handout, or other modes (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3; P = .004). Most oncologists in the intervention arm (76%) discussed comorbidities in light of the treatment plan, and 41% tailored treatment plans. CONCLUSION: Providing oncologists with a GA-guided intervention enhanced communication regarding comorbidities.

Biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma: Are we there yet?

Management of kidney cancer has undergone a paradigm shift with the approval of new therapies over the last two decades. Although these drugs have improved clinical outcomes in patients with kidney cancer, there are still a large number of patients who do not show objective responses. A multitude of investigators, including those for The Cancer Genome Atlas have biologically characterized and sub-classified kidney cancer. However, we have not been able to identify molecular targets to effectively treat patients with kidney cancer. As we familiarize ourselves with newer drugs for patients with kidney cancer, it is important to understand that these drugs may not work in every patient and instead may expose patients to unnecessary toxic effects along with burdening society with the financial impact. As we head toward the era of "precision medicine", validated biomarkers are being utilized to guide treatment choices and help identify pathways of resistance in other tumor types. The current review aims at evaluating the progress made so far in this realm for patients with kidney cancer.

Response to Rucaparib in BRCA-Mutant Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Identified by Genomic Testing in the TRITON2 Study.

PURPOSE: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor-directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. RESULTS: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

The Relationship Between Frailty and Emotional Health in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Aging-related deficits that eventually manifest as frailty may be associated with poor emotional health in older patients with advanced cancer. This study aimed to examine the relationship between frailty and emotional health in this population. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of baseline data from a nationwide cluster randomized trial. Patients were aged ≥70 years with incurable stage III/IV solid tumors or lymphomas, had ≥1 geriatric assessment (GA) domain impairment, and had completed the Geriatric Depression Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Distress Thermometer. Frailty was assessed using a Deficit Accumulation Index (DAI; range 0-1) based on GA, which did not include emotional health variables (depression and anxiety), and participants were stratified into robust, prefrail, and frail categories. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the association of frailty with emotional health outcomes. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one patients were included (mean age: 77 years; 70-96). DAI ranged from 0.04 to 0.94; 27% of patients were classified as robust, 42% prefrail, and 31% frail. Compared with robust patients, frail patients had an increased risk of screening positive for depression (aOR = 12.8; 95% CI = 6.1-27.0), anxiety (aOR = 6.6; 95% CI = 2.2-19.7), and emotional distress (aOR = 4.62; 95% CI = 2.9-8.3). Prefrail compared with robust patients also had an increased risk of screening positive for depression (aOR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.0-4.8) and distress (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.0-2.8). CONCLUSION: In older patients with advanced cancer, frailty is associated with poorer emotional health, which indicates a need for an integrated care approach to treating these patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A relationship exists between frailty and poor emotional health in older adults with advanced cancer. Identifying areas of frailty can prompt screening for emotional health and guide delivery of appropriate interventions. Alternatively, attention to emotional health may also improve frailty.