First-line talazoparib with enzalutamide in HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial.

Preclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197 .

A Randomized, Open-label, Cross-over Phase 2 Trial of Darolutamide and Enzalutamide in Men with Asymptomatic or Mildly Symptomatic Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer: Patient Preference and Cognitive Function in ODENZA.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide and enzalutamide are second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors with activity in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and different toxicity profiles. OBJECTIVE: ODENZA is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, cross-over, phase 2 trial designed to assess preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide in men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either darolutamide 1200 mg/d for 12 wk followed by enzalutamide 160 mg/d for 12 wk or enzalutamide followed by darolutamide. In both arms, the second treatment was given in absence of cancer progression. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was patient preference between the two drugs, as assessed by a preference questionnaire (p value calculated with the Prescott test). After week 24, patients entered an extension period during which they received their preferred treatment until progression or toxicity. The main secondary objectives included reasons for patient preference, response at week 12, tolerance of each drug, and measurement compared with baseline of cognitive outcomes assessed using tablet questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 249 patients, with a median age of 72 yr, were randomized. Among the 200 patients who fulfilled the preplanned criteria for the evaluation of the primary endpoint of preference, 97 (49% [41; 56]), 80 (40% [33; 47]), and 23 (12% [7; 16]) chose darolutamide, chose enzalutamide, and had no preference, respectively (p = 0.92). Reduced fatigue, easier administration, and better quality of life were the main criteria that influenced patient choice. A moderate benefit in episodic memory from darolutamide was observed for the acquisition of new information (least square [LS] means difference = 2.2, effect size = 0.5) and for the recall of that information after a brief delay (LS means difference = 0.7, effect size = 0.3). Using the Brief Fatigue Inventory questionnaire, patients reported greater fatigue with enzalutamide (3.3 [3.0; 3.6]) than with darolutamide (2.7 [2.4; 3.0]). There was no difference in terms of depression, seizures, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not show a difference in preference between the two treatments. In men with mCRPC, darolutamide was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit in episodic memory and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide. PATIENT SUMMARY: Preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide was well balanced in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Darolutamide was associated with a significant benefit in verbal learning and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide.

Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable. Objective: To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications. Results: Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TALAPRO-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Rucaparib for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Associated with a DNA Damage Repair Gene Alteration: Final Results from the Phase 2 TRITON2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration. OBJECTIVE: To present the final data from TRITON2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene. PATIENT SUMMARY: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Comprehensive Clinical Subgroup Analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries. OBJECTIVE: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Sapanisertib ± TAK-117 vs. Everolimus in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After VEGF-Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib, a dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor, may offer more complete inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway than mTORC1 inhibitors, such as everolimus. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-agent sapanisertib and sapanisertib plus the PI3Kα inhibitor TAK-117, vs. everolimus in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that had progressed on or after VEGF-targeted therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, advanced ccRCC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent everolimus 10 mg once daily, single-agent sapanisertib 30 mg once weekly, or sapanisertib 4 mg plus TAK-117 200 mg, both once daily for 3 days/week, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were treated with everolimus or sapanisertib (n = 32 each), or sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (n = 31). There were no significant differences in PFS among the 3 groups or across any subgroups. Median PFS was 3.8 months with everolimus vs. 3.6 months with sapanisertib (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.75-2.36), and 3.1 months with sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.75-2.52). No significant differences in overall survival were seen among groups. Overall response rate was 16.7%, 0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 15.6%, 28.1%, and 29.0%. CONCLUSION: Sapanisertib with or without TAK-117 was less tolerable and did not improve efficacy vs. everolimus in patients with advanced ccRCC who had relapsed after or were refractory to VEGF-targeted therapies. Dual mTORC1/2 inhibition may not be an effective therapeutic approach for these patients.

Plain language summary of results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study: avelumab maintenance treatment for advanced urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JAVELIN BLADDER 100 STUDY?: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Association of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Efficacy of First-Line Avelumab plus Axitinib vs. Sunitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Enrolled in the Phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. RESULTS: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634-1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415-0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300-0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174-0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: What Are the Most Appropriate Combination Therapies?

The development of antiangiogenic treatments, followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), has significantly changed the management of metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer. Several phase III trials show the superiority of combination therapy, dual immunotherapy (ICI-ICI) or ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) of the vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF) over sunitinib monotherapy. The question is therefore what is the best combination for a given patient? A strategy based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) classification is currently recommended with pembrolizumab + axitinib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, and lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (for all patients) or nivolumab + ipilimumab (for patients with intermediate or poor risk), which are the first-line treatment standards of care. However, several issues remain unresolved and require further investigation, such as the PD-L1 status, the relevance of possible options based on the patient's profile, and consideration of second-line and subsequent treatments.

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.

Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Impact of Cisplatin Delivery on Renal Function and Local Control Rate in the Randomized Phase III VESPER (GETUG-AFU V05) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy before surgery is the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, the optimal chemotherapy modalities have not been precisely defined to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the VESPER trial, patients received after randomization either gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 4 cycles) or methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dose dense [dd]-MVAC, 6 cycles). Creatinine clearance (CrCl) was calculated before each cycle according to the Cockroft and Gault formula. Definition criteria for local control after neoadjuvant chemotherapy included pathological complete response (ypT0N0), pathological downstaging (

Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

Rucaparib in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Gene Alteration.

PURPOSE: BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS: We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS: Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.

Non-BRCA DNA Damage Repair Gene Alterations and Response to the PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Analysis From the Phase II TRITON2 Study.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). RESULTS: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition.See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439.

Long survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Results of real life study of 344 patients.

The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed fundamentally over the last decade by the development of antiangiogenic agents, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and immunotherapy. Outside of the context of a clinical trial, the treatments are used sequentially. We describe results under real-life conditions of a sequential treatment strategy, before the era of immunotherapy. All patients were treated according to their prognostic score (either Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) for advanced renal cell carcinoma. A treatment strategy involving 1 to 4 lines was determined including a rechallenge criterion for the repeat use of a treatment class. Three hundred forty-four patients were included over 3 years. Overall survival was 57 months in patients with good or intermediate prognosis and 19 months in patients with poor prognosis. In the former group, the proportions of patients treated with 2 to 4 treatment lines were 70%, 38% and 16%, respectively. The best objective response rates for lines 1 to 4 were 46%, 36%, 16% and 17%, respectively. Grade III/IV toxicity did not appear to be cumulative. The recommended strategy was followed in 68% of patients. A large proportion of patients with good or intermediate prognosis who progress after two lines of treatment still have a performance status good enough to receive a systemic treatment, which justifies such a strategy. Overall survival of patients with good and intermediate prognosis was long, suggesting a benefit from the applied approach. These results might be used as selection criterion for the treatment of patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors.