[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).

Carboplatin in Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Study of Heavily Pretreated Patients (COMPACT).

INTRODUCTION: Many clinicians consider carboplatin monotherapy in advanced castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients who have progressed through all available hormonal and standard chemotherapy treatment options, despite the limited evidence to justify its use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the use of carboplatin monotherapy in patients with refractory prostate cancer in Australia. Efficacy (PSA response, duration, and survival) as well as toxicity was evaluated. Demographic data, PSA response rates, survival data and details of carboplatin treatment protocols, including dose and duration, were collected. Exploratory analyses were conducted on potential prognostic factors. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received carboplatin: median age 68 (range 55-86 years). Most patients (78.3%) received carboplatin AUC 5 at 3-week intervals. The median number of cycles of carboplatin received was 3 (range 1-17). The median duration of treatment was 63 days (range 1-441). The median overall survival was 6.8 months. Six (11.8%) patients had a PSA response ≥ 50%. The median time to PSA progression on carboplatin, as defined by PCWG,2 was 67 days (range 15-418). Sixteen patients (31%) required dose delays or reductions and 8 patients (15.6%) ceased carboplatin due to treatment toxicity. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin is often used in Australia once all available standard treatment options have been exhausted in patients with CRPC. Toxicity is mild, and a minority of patients have responses, but these responses are rarely durable.

Xaluritamig, a STEAP1 × CD3 XmAb 2+1 Immune Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from Dose Exploration in a First-in-Human Study.

Xaluritamig (AMG 509) is a six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1)-targeted T-cell engager designed to facilitate lysis of STEAP1-expressing cancer cells, such as those in advanced prostate cancer. This first-in-human study reports monotherapy dose exploration for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), primarily taxane pretreated. Ninety-seven patients received ≥1 intravenous dose ranging from 0.001 to 2.0 mg weekly or every 2 weeks. MTD was identified as 1.5 mg i.v. weekly via a 3-step dose. The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 72%), fatigue (45%), and myalgia (34%). CRS occurred primarily during cycle 1 and improved with premedication and step dosing. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and RECIST responses across cohorts were encouraging [49% PSA50; 24% objective response rate (ORR)], with greater frequency at target doses ≥0.75 mg (59% PSA50; 41% ORR). Xaluritamig is a novel immunotherapy for prostate cancer that has shown encouraging results supporting further development. SIGNIFICANCE: Xaluritamig demonstrated encouraging responses (PSA and RECIST) compared with historical established treatments for patients with late-line mCRPC. This study provides proof of concept for T-cell engagers as a potential treatment for prostate cancer, validates STEAP1 as a target, and supports further clinical investigation of xaluritamig in prostate cancer. See related commentary by Hage Chehade et al., p. 20. See related article by Nolan-Stevaux et al., p. 90. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5.

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.

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.

A Phase Ib, Open-label Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Ipatasertib plus Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the safety and efficacy of ipatasertib (AKT inhibitor) combined with rucaparib (PARP inhibitor) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-part phase Ib trial (NCT03840200), patients with advanced prostate, breast, or ovarian cancer received ipatasertib (300 or 400 mg daily) plus rucaparib (400 or 600 mg twice daily) to assess safety and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A part 1 dose-escalation phase was followed by a part 2 dose-expansion phase in which only patients with mCRPC received the RP2D. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) in patients with mCRPC. Patients were not selected on the basis of tumor mutational status. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (part 1 = 21; part 2 = 30). Ipatasertib 400 mg daily plus rucaparib 400 mg twice daily was the selected RP2D, received by 37 patients with mCRPC. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 46% (17/37) of patients, with one grade 4 adverse event (anemia, deemed related to rucaparib) and no deaths. Adverse events leading to treatment modification occurred in 70% (26/37). The PSA response rate was 26% (9/35), and the objective response rate per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 was 10% (2/21). Median radiographic progression-free survival per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria was 5.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.0-8.1], and median overall survival was 13.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-not evaluable). CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib plus rucaparib was manageable with dose modification but did not demonstrate synergistic or additive antitumor activity in previously treated patients with mCRPC.

Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma.

Patterns of chemotherapy use in muscle-invasive bladder cancer in a tertiary centre.

Objectives: Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been demonstrated to have significant benefits to survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), the current utilization of NAC in Australia is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patterns of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) use in patients undergoing cystectomy for MIBC at a large tertiary institution in Australia. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using data of patients who underwent a radical cystectomy (RC) at a high-volume centre for MIBC between 2011 and 2021. Results: Of 69 patients who had a cystectomy for ≥ pT2 bladder cancer, 73.9% were eligible for NAC. However, of those eligible, only five patients received NAC (9.8%). Of the total patients who were eligible for AC, only 44.4% received postoperative chemotherapy. Common reasons for the lack of uptake were due to patients being unfit or declining treatment. There was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival in those who received NAC and AC. Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing RC for MIBC received AC compared to NAC, reflecting the real-world challenge of NAC uptake. This highlights the need for ongoing improvements in selection and usage of NAC and less reliance of AC utilization post RC.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an International, Randomized Phase III Trial Led by ANZUP.

PURPOSE: We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS: HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). RESULTS: HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL.

Real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens: impact on patient outcomes and subsequent therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the recent real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens (FGAs) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using a retrospective multicentre cohort study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify patients with mCRPC. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by FGA use, were retrieved and reported through descriptive statistics. Survival analyses were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: We identified 634 patients with mCRPC, enrolled in ePAD between January 2016 and March 2019, including 322 (51%) who received FGAs. The median follow-up was 21.9 months. Patients treated with FGAs were more likely to have lower International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade group (P = 0.04), longer median time to CRPC (25.6 vs 16.0 months, P < 0.001), and were less likely to have visceral metastases (5.0% vs 11.2%, P = 0.005) or to have received upfront docetaxel (P < 0.001). A ≥50% reduction from pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (PSA50 response) during FGA treatment occurred in 119 (37%) patients and was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.233, P < 0.001). Prior FGA treatment did not significantly influence the selection of subsequent life-prolonging treatments for mCRPC or their PSA50 response rates. CONCLUSION: In our present cohort, FGAs were commonly used in lower-risk mCRPC and their use did not significantly influence the choice or duration of subsequent systemic therapy. A PSA50 response to FGA therapy was an independent favourable prognostic marker associated with improved OS.

CX-5461 Sensitizes DNA Damage Repair-proficient Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer to PARP Inhibition.

Monotherapy with PARP inhibitors is effective for the subset of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with defects in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair. New treatments are required for the remaining tumors, and an emerging strategy is to combine PARP inhibitors with other therapies that induce DNA damage. Here we tested whether PARP inhibitors are effective for HR-proficient CRPC, including androgen receptor (AR)-null tumors, when used in combination with CX-5461, a small molecule that inhibits RNA polymerase I transcription and activates the DNA damage response, and has antitumor activity in early phase I trials. The combination of CX-5461 and talazoparib significantly decreased in vivo growth of patient-derived xenografts of HR-proficient CRPC, including AR-positive, AR-null, and neuroendocrine tumors. CX-5461 and talazoparib synergistically inhibited the growth of organoids and cell lines, and significantly increased the levels of DNA damage. Decreased tumor growth after combination therapy was maintained for 2 weeks without treatment, significantly increasing host survival. Therefore, combination treatment with CX-5461 and talazoparib is effective for HR-proficient tumors that are not suitable for monotherapy with PARP inhibitors, including AR-null CRPC. This expands the spectrum of CRPC that is sensitive to PARP inhibition.

The MURAL collection of prostate cancer patient-derived xenografts enables discovery through preclinical models of uro-oncology.

Preclinical testing is a crucial step in evaluating cancer therapeutics. We aimed to establish a significant resource of patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) of prostate cancer for rapid and systematic evaluation of candidate therapies. The PDX collection comprises 59 tumors collected from 30 patients between 2012-2020, coinciding with availability of abiraterone and enzalutamide. The PDXs represent the clinico-pathological and genomic spectrum of prostate cancer, from treatment-naïve primary tumors to castration-resistant metastases. Inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity in adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine phenotypes is evident from bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data. Organoids can be cultured from PDXs, providing further capabilities for preclinical studies. Using a 1 x 1 x 1 design, we rapidly identify tumors with exceptional responses to combination treatments. To govern the distribution of PDXs, we formed the Melbourne Urological Research Alliance (MURAL). This PDX collection is a substantial resource, expanding the capacity to test and prioritize effective treatments for prospective clinical trials in prostate cancer.

Overall Survival of Men with Metachronous Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Androgen receptor enhancer amplification in matched patient-derived xenografts of primary and castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Amplifications of the androgen receptor (AR) occur in up to 80% of men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Recent studies highlighted that these amplifications not only span the AR gene but usually encompass a distal enhancer. This represents a newly recognised, non-coding mechanism of resistance to AR-directed therapies, including enzalutamide. To study disease progression before and after AR amplification, we used tumour samples from a castrate-sensitive primary tumour and castrate-resistant metastasis of the same patient. For subsequent functional and genomic studies, we established serially transplantable patient-derived xenografts (PDXs). Whole genome sequencing showed that alterations associated with poor prognosis, such as TP53 and PTEN loss, existed before androgen deprivation therapy, followed by co-amplification of the AR gene and enhancer after the development of metastatic CRPC. The PDX of the primary tumour, without the AR amplification, was sensitive to AR-directed treatments, including castration, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. The PDX of the metastasis, with the AR amplification, had higher AR and AR-V7 expression in castrate conditions, and was resistant to castration, apalutamide, and enzalutamide in vivo. Treatment with a BET inhibitor outperformed the AR-directed therapies for the metastasis, resulting in tumour regression for some, but not all, grafts. Therefore, this study provides novel matched PDXs to test potential treatments that target the overabundance of AR in tumours with AR enhancer amplifications. © 2021 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PIVOT-10: Phase II study of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer.

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer following docetaxel for hormone-sensitive disease.

AIM: Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed.

Prognostic Utility of a Whole-blood Androgen Receptor-based Gene Signature in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has evolved significantly in recent years. Identifying predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers in the context of this rapidly expanding therapeutic armamentarium remains a pressing and unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prognostic whole-blood gene signature for mCRPC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: As part of an ongoing prospective, multicentre biomarker research study (Australian Prostate Biomarker Alliance), we enrolled 115 mCRPC patients commencing chemotherapy (n = 34) or androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibitors therapy (n = 81) and obtained pretreatment whole-blood samples in PAXgene RNA tubes. Gene expression was assessed using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Gene transcripts correlating with overall survival (OS) at p < 0.10 in univariate Cox regression models were incorporated into a multigene signature. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multivariate analyses were used to assess association with clinical outcomes. Prognostic strength of the signature was estimated using a concordance probability estimate (CPE). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Based on univariate analysis for OS, the following genes were incorporated into a multigene signature: AR splice variant 7 (AR-V7), and three androgen-regulated genes: GRHL2, HOXB13, and FOXA1. The number of positive transcripts clearly stratified survival outcomes (median OS: not reached vs 24.8 mo vs 16.2 mo for 0, 1, and ≥2 transcripts, respectively; p = 0.0052). Notably, this multigene signature retained prognostic significance on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.0; p = 0.019). Moreover, CPE for this model was 0.78, indicating strong discriminative capacity. Limitations include short follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the prognostic utility of a novel whole-blood AR-based signature in mCRPC patients commencing contemporary systemic therapies. Our pragmatic assay requires minimal processing, can be performed in most hospital laboratories, and could represent a key prognostic tool for risk stratification in mCRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that expression of certain genes associated with the androgen receptor could help determine how long men with advanced prostate cancer survive after starting modern drug therapies.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Establishing a cryopreservation protocol for patient-derived xenografts of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Serially transplantable patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are invaluable preclinical models for studying tumor biology and evaluating therapeutic agents. As these models are challenging to establish from prostate cancer specimens, the ability to preserve them through cryopreservation has several advantages for ongoing research. Despite this, there is still uncertainty about the ability to cryopreserve PDXs of prostate cancer. This study compared three different cryopreservation protocols to identify a method that can be used to reproducibly cryopreserve a diverse cohort of prostate cancer PDX models. METHODS: One serially transplantable prostate cancer PDX from the Melbourne Urological Research Alliance cohort was used to compare three cryopreservation protocols: slow freezing in fetal calf serum (FCS) with 10% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), FCS with 10% DMSO supplemented with the Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) inhibitor Y-27632 and vitrification. The efficiency of the slow freezing protocols was then assessed in 17 additional prostate cancer PDXs. Following cryopreservation, PDXs were re-established in host mice that were either intact and supplemented with testosterone or castrated. Graft take rate, tumor growth, histological features, and transcriptome profiles before and after cryopreservation were compared. RESULTS: Slow freezing maintained the viability and histological features of prostate cancer PDXs, and the addition of a ROCK inhibitor increased their growth following cryopreservation. Using the slow freezing method, we re-established 100% of PDXs grown in either testosterone-supplemented or castrated host mice. Importantly, the long-term tumor growth rate and transcriptome profile were maintained following cryopreservation. CONCLUSION: This study has identified a protocol to reliably cryopreserve and re-establish a diverse cohort of serially transplantable PDXs of prostate cancer. This study has the potential to significantly improve the practicality of maintaining PDX models. Cryopreservation may also increase the accessibility of these important resources and provide new opportunities for preclinical studies on a broader spectrum of prostate tumors.