True-Positive 18F-Flotufolastat Lesions in Patients with Prostate Cancer Recurrence with Baseline-Negative Conventional Imaging: Results from the Prospective, Phase 3, Multicenter SPOTLIGHT Study.

18F-rhPSMA-7.3 (18F-flotufolastat) is a high-affinity prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted diagnostic radiopharmaceutical for PET imaging in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we report findings from the SPOTLIGHT study (NCT04186845), assessing the performance of 18F-flotufolastat PET/CT for identifying prostate-specific membrane antigen-positive lesions confirmed by standard of truth (SoT) in men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer and negative conventional imaging at baseline. Methods: Men with biochemical recurrence received 296 MBq of 18F-flotufolastat intravenously and then underwent PET/CT 50-70 min later. 18F-flotufolastat PET/CT findings were evaluated by 3 masked central readers and verified using histopathology or follow-up confirmatory imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan, or 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT) as the SoT. The present analysis evaluated all patients who had negative conventional imaging at baseline, underwent 18F-flotufolastat PET/CT, and had SoT verification by histopathology or follow-up confirmatory imaging to report detection rate (DR), which is the number of patients with at least 1 PET-positive lesion, divided by the number of evaluable patients, and verified DR (VDR), which is the proportion of patients with at least 1 true-positive lesion as verified by SoT, of all patients scanned (PET-positive and PET-negative scans). DR and VDR were calculated and stratified according to prior therapy. Majority read data (agreement between ≥2 readers) are reported. Results: In total, 171 patients with negative baseline conventional imaging and SoT by histopathology or post-PET confirmatory imaging were evaluated. By majority read, the overall 18F-flotufolastat DR among these patients was 95% (163/171; 95% CI, 91.0%-98.0%), and 110 of 171 of these patients had at least 1 true-positive lesion identified (VDR, 64%; 95% CI, 56.7%-71.5%). In the postprostatectomy group (133/171), 8.3% of patients had at least 1 true-positive lesion in the prostate bed, 28% in pelvic lymph nodes, and 35% in other sites. Among those who had received radiotherapy (36/171), 50% of patients had true-positive detections in the prostate, 8.3% in pelvic lymph nodes, and 36% in other sites. Conclusion: 18F-flotufolastat frequently identified true-positive prostate cancer lesions in patients with negative conventional imaging. 18F-flotufolastat may help to better define sites of disease recurrence and inform salvage therapy decisions than does conventional imaging, potentially leading to improved outcomes.

Diagnostic Performance and Safety of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 Positron Emission Tomography in Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer Recurrence: Results From a Phase 3, Prospective, Multicenter Study (SPOTLIGHT).

PURPOSE: SPOTLIGHT (NCT04186845) evaluated diagnostic performance and safety of radiohybrid 18F-rhPSMA-7.3, a novel high-affinity positron emission tomography radiopharmaceutical. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer recurrence underwent positron emission tomography/CT 50-70 minutes after intravenous administration of 296±20% MBq 18F-rhPSMA-7.3. To assess the coprimary end points (verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value), 3 blinded, independent central readers evaluated the scans. Verified detection rate is equivalent to the overall detection rate × positive predictive value. Standard of truth was established for each patient using histopathology or confirmatory imaging. Statistical thresholds (lower bounds of the confidence intervals) of 36.5% and 62.5% were prespecified for verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value, respectively. Additional end points included detection rate, verified detection rate, and combined region-level positive predictive value in patients with histopathology standard of truth, and safety. RESULTS: The overall 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 detection rate among all 389 patients with an evaluable scan was 83% (majority read). Among the 366 patients (median prostate-specific antigen 1.27 ng/mL) for whom a standard of truth (histopathology [n=69]/confirmatory imaging only [n=297]) was available, verified detection rate ranged from 51% (95% CI 46.1-56.6) to 54% (95% CI 48.8-59.3), exceeding the prespecified statistical threshold. Combined region-level positive predictive value ranged from 46% (95% CI 42.0-50.3) to 60% (95% CI 55.1-65.5) across the readers, not meeting the threshold. In the subset of patients with histopathology standard of truth, the verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value were both above the prespecified thresholds (majority read, 81% [95% CI 69.9-89.6] and 72% [95% CI 62.5-80.7], respectively). No significant safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 offers a clinically meaningful verified detection rate for localization of recurrent prostate cancer. Despite missing the coprimary end point of combined region-level positive predictive value, the totality of the data support the potential clinical utility of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3.

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment-emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design setting and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non-central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Targeting FGFR3 alterations with adjuvant infigratinib in invasive urothelial carcinoma: the phase III PROOF 302 trial.

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptible FGFR3 alterations (activating mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements), ≤120 days following radical surgery and ineligible for/or refusing cisplatin-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receive either oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary end point: centrally determined disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival and safety/tolerability; exploratory end points: correlative biomarker analysis, quality-of-life and infigratinib pharmacokinetics.

Cancers of the bladder and other parts in the urinary system, especially those that are invasive and grow into the muscle layer, may need extra treatment after surgical removal of the tumor, particularly if there is a high risk of the cancer coming back. Chemotherapy regimens that include cisplatin are often used postoperatively, although some patients are unable to tolerate this treatment or refuse it. FGFR3, a protein that is encoded by the FGFR3 gene, is often changed in these cancers. This helps the tumor grow. Infigratinib is an investigational drug that targets FGFR3 and inhibits the abnormal growth of the tumor. In the PROOF 302 study, patients are randomly assigned to treatment with infigratinib or a placebo pill for 1 year after surgery to see if the drug is effective. The aim is to see if patients who take infigratinib have a longer time free from the disease than those who receive a placebo. The study will also look at how long patients remain free from cancer spread and how long they live overall. The study will also investigate how safe the treatment is and how easy it is to live with it. PROOF 302 is an important study as it will define the role of infigratinib in patients with cancers of the bladder and urinary system who also have FGFR3 changes, for whom more treatment choices are needed. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04197986 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study. METHODS: The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Talazoparib monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair alterations (TALAPRO-1): an open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have antitumour activity against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA damage response (DDR) alterations in genes involved directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). In this study, we assessed the PARP inhibitor talazoparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR alterations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial (TALAPRO-1), participants were recruited from 43 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were men aged 18 years or older with progressive, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers of adenocarcinoma histology, measurable soft-tissue disease (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 [RECIST 1.1]), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, DDR-HRR gene alterations reported to sensitise to PARP inhibitors (ie, ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C), had received one or two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, and progressed on enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both, for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers. Eligible patients were given oral talazoparib (1 mg per day; or 0·75 mg per day in patients with moderate renal impairment) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, investigator decision, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate, defined as best overall soft-tissue response of complete or partial response per RECIST 1.1, by blinded independent central review. The primary endpoint was assessed in patients who received study drug, had measurable soft-tissue disease, and had a gene alteration in one of the predefined DDR-HRR genes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03148795, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2017, and March 20, 2020, 128 patients were enrolled, of whom 127 received at least one dose of talazoparib (safety population) and 104 had measurable soft-tissue disease (antitumour activity population). Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 4, 2020. After a median follow-up of 16·4 months (IQR 11·1-22·1), the objective response rate was 29·8% (31 of 104 patients; 95% CI 21·2-39·6). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (39 [31%] of 127 patients), thrombocytopenia (11 [9%]), and neutropenia (ten [8%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43 (34%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib showed durable antitumour activity in men with advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR gene alterations who had been heavily pretreated. The favourable benefit-risk profile supports the study of talazoparib in larger, randomised clinical trials, including in patients with non-BRCA alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer/Medivation.

Beyond the Androgen Receptor: The Sequence, the Mutants, and New Avengers in the Treatment of Castrate-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Targeting the androgen receptor by depriving testosterone with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists, or surgical castration, has been the backbone of metastatic prostate cancer treatment. Although most prostate cancers initially respond to androgen deprivation, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer evolves into a heterogeneous disease with diverse drivers of progression and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Development of castrate resistance phenotype is associated with lethality despite the recent noteworthy strides gained via increase in therapeutic options. Identification of novel therapeutics to further improve survival and achieve durable responses in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a clinical necessity. In this review, we outline the existing avengers for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer by clinical presentation, placing into context the clinical state of the patient, such as burden of disease and symptoms. Doing so might aid in the ability to optimize the sequence of agents and allow for maximal exposure to life-prolonging therapeutics. Realizing the limitations of the androgen signaling inhibition, we explore the androgen-indifferent prostate cancer: the mutants. Classically, these subtypes have been associated with variant histology, but androgen-indifferent prostate cancer features are now frequently observed in association with heterogeneous morphologies, including double-negative prostate cancers, lacking both androgen receptor and neuroendocrine features, or clinicopathologic criteria, such as the aggressive variant prostate cancer criteria. The framework of new avengers against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer based on mechanism, including DNA repair, immune checkpoint inhibition, PTEN/PI3K/AKT pathway, prostate-specific membrane antigen targets, bispecific T-cell engagers, and radionuclide therapies, is summarized in this review.

A prospective trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in Black and White men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analyses of randomized trials suggest that Black men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have longer survival than White men. The authors conducted a prospective study of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to explore outcomes by race. METHODS: This race-stratified, multicenter study estimated radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in Black and White men with mCRPC. Secondary end points included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics, overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory analysis included genome-wide genotyping to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with progression in a model incorporating genetic ancestry. One hundred patients self-identified as White (n = 50) or Black (n = 50) were enrolled. Eligibility criteria were modified to facilitate the enrollment of individual Black patients. RESULTS: The median rPFS for Black and White patients was 16.6 and 16.8 months, respectively; their times to PSA progression (TTP) were 16.6 and 11.5 months, respectively; and their OS was 35.9 and 35.7 months, respectively. Estimated rates of PSA decline by ≥50% in Black and White patients were 74% and 66%, respectively; and PSA declines to <0.2 ng/mL were 26% and 10%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 and 4 hypertension, hypokalemia, and hyperglycemia were higher in Black men. CONCLUSIONS: Multicenter prospective studies by race are feasible in men with mCRPC but require less restrictive eligibility. Despite higher comorbidity rates, Black patients demonstrated rPFS and OS similar to those of White patients and trended toward greater TTP and PSA declines, consistent with retrospective reports. Importantly, Black men may have higher side-effect rates than White men. This exploratory genome-wide analysis of TTP identified a possible candidate marker of ancestry-dependent treatment outcomes.

Phase I Study of MEDI3726: A Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Patients with mCRPC after Failure of Abiraterone or Enzalutamide.

PURPOSE: MEDI3726 is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen and carrying a pyrrolobenzodiazepine warhead. This phase I study evaluated MEDI3726 monotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after disease progression on abiraterone and/or enzalutamide and taxane-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MEDI3726 was administered at 0.015-0.3 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and MTD/maximum administered dose (MAD). Secondary objectives included assessment of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. The main efficacy endpoint was composite response, defined as confirmed response by RECIST v1.1, and/or PSA decrease of ≥50% after ≥12 weeks, and/or decrease from ≥5 to <5 circulating tumor cells/7.5 mL blood. RESULTS: Between February 1, 2017 and November 13, 2019, 33 patients received MEDI3726. By the data cutoff (January 17, 2020), treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 30 patients (90.9%), primarily skin toxicities and effusions. Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 15 patients (45.5%). Eleven patients (33.3%) discontinued because of TRAEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. One patient receiving 0.3 mg/kg had a DLT of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. The MTD was not identified; the MAD was 0.3 mg/kg. The composite response rate was 4/33 (12.1%). MEDI3726 had nonlinear pharmacokinetics with a short half-life (0.3-1.8 days). The prevalence of antidrug antibodies was 3/32 (9.4%), and the incidence was 13/32 (40.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Following dose escalation, no MTD was identified. Clinical responses occurred at higher doses, but were not durable as patients had to discontinue treatment due to TRAEs.

A randomized phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab and acalabrutinib in patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) pathway has demonstrated clinical benefit in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC); however, response rates of 15% to 26% highlight the need for more effective therapies. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition may suppress myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and improve T-cell activation. METHODS: The Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Acalabrutinib and Pembrolizumab Immunotherapy Dual Checkpoint Inhibition in Platinum-Resistant Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (RAPID CHECK; also known as ACE-ST-005) was a randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab with or without the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib for patients with platinum-refractory mUC. The primary objectives were safety and objective response rates (ORRs) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immune profiling was performed to analyze circulating monocytic MDSCs and T cells. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were treated with pembrolizumab (n = 35) or pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (n = 40). The ORR was 26% with pembrolizumab (9% with a complete response [CR]) and 20% with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (10% with a CR). The grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥15% of the patients were anemia (20%) with pembrolizumab and fatigue (23%), increased alanine aminotransferase (23%), urinary tract infections (18%), and anemia (18%) with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib. One patient treated with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib had high MDSCs at the baseline, which significantly decreased at week 7. Overall, MDSCs were not correlated with a clinical response, but some subsets of CD8+ T cells did increase during the combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were generally well tolerated, although serious AE rates were higher with the combination. Acalabrutinib plus pembrolizumab did not improve the ORR, PFS, or OS in comparison with pembrolizumab alone in mUC. Baseline and on-treatment peripheral monocytic MDSCs were not different in the treatment cohorts. Proliferating CD8+ T-cell subsets increased during treatment, particularly in the combination cohort. Ongoing studies are correlating these peripheral immunome findings with tissue-based immune cell infiltration.

Randomized Double-Blind Phase II Study of Maintenance Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer is typically administered for a fixed duration followed by observation until progression. "Switch maintenance" therapy with PD-1 blockade at the time of chemotherapy cessation may be attractive for mechanistic and pragmatic reasons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic urothelial cancer achieving at least stable disease on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned double-blind 1:1 to switch maintenance pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks versus placebo for up to 24 months. Patients with disease progression on placebo could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included determining overall survival as well as treatment outcomes according to PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). RESULTS: Between December 2015 and November 2018, 108 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53). The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 10% with placebo. Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 59% receiving pembrolizumab and 38% of patients receiving placebo. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance pembrolizumab versus placebo (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.1 to 7.3 months] v 3.0 months [95% CI; 2.7 to 5.5 months]; hazard ratio, 0.65; log-rank P = .04; maximum efficiency robust test P = .039). Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 12.9 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab and 18.7 months (95% CI, 11.4 months to not reached) with placebo. There was no significant interaction between PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Switch maintenance pembrolizumab leads to additional objective responses in patients achieving at least stable disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and prolongs progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

PSMA ADC monotherapy in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following abiraterone and/or enzalutamide: Efficacy and safety in open-label single-arm phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a well-established therapeutic and diagnostic target overexpressed in both primary and metastatic prostate cancers. PSMA antibody-drug conjugate (PSMA ADC) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 anti-PSMA monoclonal antibody conjugated to monomethylauristatin E, which binds to PSMA-positive cells and induces cytotoxicity. In a phase 1 study, PSMA ADC was well tolerated and demonstrated activity as measured by reductions in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). To further assess PSMA ADC, we conducted a phase 2 trial in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) subjects who progressed following abiraterone/enzalutamide (abi/enz) therapy. METHODS: A total of 119 (84 chemotherapy-experienced and 35 chemotherapy-naïve) subjects were administered PSMA ADC 2.5 or 2.3 mg/kg IV q3w for up to eight cycles. Antitumor activity (best percentage declines in PSA and CTCs from baseline and tumor responses through radiological imaging), exploratory biomarkers, and safety (monitoring of adverse events [AEs], clinical laboratory tests, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were assessed. RESULTS: PSA declines ≥50% occurred in 14% of all treated (n = 113) and 21% of chemotherapy-naïve subjects (n = 34). CTC declines ≥50% were seen in 78% of all treated (n = 77; number of subjects with ≥5 CTCs at baseline and a posttreatment result) and 89% of chemotherapy-naïve subjects (n = 19); 47% of all treated and 53% of chemotherapy-naïve subjects had a transition from ≥5 to less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL blood at some point during the study. PSA and CTC reductions were associated with high PSMA expression (CTCs or tumor tissue) and low neuroendocrine serum markers. In the chemotherapy-experienced group, the best overall radiologic response to PSMA ADC treatment was stable disease in 51 (60.7%) subjects; 5.7% of subjects in the chemotherapy-naïve group had partial responses. The most common treatment-related AEs ≥Common Terminology Criteria for AE (CTCAE) grade 3 were neutropenia, fatigue, electrolyte imbalance, anemia, and neuropathy. The most common serious AEs were dehydration, hyponatremia, febrile neutropenia, and constipation. Two subjects who received 2.5 mg/kg died of sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA ADC demonstrated some activity with respect to PSA declines, CTC conversions/reductions, and radiologic assessments in abi/enz treated mCRPC subjects. Clinically significant treatment-related AEs included neutropenia and neuropathy.

Phase 1 study of PSMA ADC, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen, in chemotherapy-refractory prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a well-characterized target that is overexpressed selectively on prostate cancer cells. PSMA antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the microtubule disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), which is designed to specifically bind PSMA-positive cells, internalize, and then release its cytotoxic payload into the cells. PSMA ADC has demonstrated potent and selective antitumor activity in preclinical models of advanced prostate cancer. A Phase 1 study was conducted to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor effects of PSMA ADC in subjects with treatment-refractory prostate cancer. METHODS: In this first-in-man dose-escalation study, PSMA ADC was administered by intravenous infusion every three weeks to subjects with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who were previously treated with docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The study also examined the pharmacokinetics of the study drug, total antibody, and free MMAE. Antitumor effects were assessed by measuring changes in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and radiologic imaging. RESULTS: Fifty-two subjects were administered doses ranging from 0.4 to 2.8 mg/kg. Subjects had a median of two prior chemotherapy regimens and prior treatment with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. Neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were identified as important first-cycle and late dose-limiting toxicities, respectively. The dose of 2.5 mg/kg was determined to be the MTD. Pharmacokinetics were approximately dose-proportional with minimal drug accumulation. Reductions in PSA and CTCs in subjects treated with doses of ≥1.8 mg/kg were durable and often concurrent. CONCLUSIONS: In an extensively pretreated mCRPC population, PSMA ADC demonstrated acceptable toxicity. Antitumor activity was observed over dose ranges up to and including 2.5 mg/kg. The observed anti-tumor activity supported further evaluation of this novel agent for the treatment of advanced metastatic prostate cancer.

Phase I Study of Seviteronel, a Selective CYP17 Lyase and Androgen Receptor Inhibitor, in Men with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: Seviteronel (INO-464) is a selective cytochrome P450c17a (CYP17) 17,20-lyase (lyase) and androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor with antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo This open-label phase I clinical study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and activity of once-daily seviteronel in male chemotherapy-naïve subjects with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Patients and Methods: Seviteronel was administered at 600 mg once daily with dose titration (DT) and in modified 3 + 3 dose escalation once-daily cohorts at 600, 750, and 900 mg without DT. The primary objectives of this study were to establish safety, tolerability, and the MTD of seviteronel in chemotherapy-naïve subjects with or without prior treatment with FDA-approved CRPC treatments, abiraterone acetate (AA), and enzalutamide. Secondary objectives were to assess pharmacokinetics, PSA, tumor response, and endocrine results.Results: Twenty-one subjects were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed through 750 mg once daily. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) reported at grade 1-2. The most commonly reported AEs were fatigue (71%), dizziness (52%), blurred vision (38%), and dysgeusia (33%), with most AEs improving after dose reduction or dose interruption.Conclusions: Once-daily seviteronel was generally well tolerated in this phase I study of men with CRPC, a majority of which had progressed on prior AA or enzalutamide, or both. Of the doses evaluated, 600 mg once daily was chosen as the recommended phase II dose for future studies in subjects with CRPC. Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5225-32. ©2018 AACR.

Phase 2 Trial of Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer and Impact of DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy may exert immunomodulatory effects, thereby combining favorably with the immune checkpoint blockade. The pharmacodynamic effects of such combinations, and potential predictive biomarkers, remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and immunomodulatory effects of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) plus ipilimumab and explore the impact of somatic DNA damage response gene alterations on antitumor activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter single arm phase 2 study enrolling 36 chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. Peripheral blood flow cytometry was performed serially on all patients and whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissue was performed on 28/36 patients. INTERVENTION: Two cycles of GC followed by four cycles of GC plus ipilimumab. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was 1-yr overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 81% of patients, the majority of which were hematologic. The objective response rate was 69% and 1-yr OS was 61% (lower bound 90% confidence interval: 51%). On exploratory analysis, there were no significant changes in the composition and frequency of circulating immune cells after GC alone. However, there was a significant expansion of circulating CD4 cells with the addition of ipilimumab which correlated with improved survival. The response rate was significantly higher in patients with deleterious somatic DNA damage response mutations (sensitivity=47.6%, specificity=100%, positive predictive value=100%, and negative predictive value=38.9%). Limitations are related to the sample size and single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: GC+ipilimumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of a lower bound of the 90% confidence interval for 1-yr OS of >60%. However, within the context of a small single-arm trial, the results may inform current approaches combining chemotherapy plus immunotherapy from the standpoint of feasibility, appropriate cytotoxic backbones, and potential predictive biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01524991. PATIENT SUMMARY: Combining chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer is feasible. Further studies are needed to refine optimal combinations and evaluate tests that might identify patients most likely to benefit.

Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population. METHODS: For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS: Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Phase Ib Study of Enzalutamide in Combination with Docetaxel in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical evidence suggests that both docetaxel and enzalutamide target androgen receptor translocation and signaling. This phase Ib study assessed the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of docetaxel when administered with enzalutamide as first-line systemic chemotherapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). EXPERIMENTAL METHODS: Docetaxel-naïve patients received 21-day cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)). Enzalutamide (160 mg/day) was administered daily starting on day 2 of cycle 1. Patients were allowed to stop and restart docetaxel at any time following cycle 2. Treatment continued indefinitely until unacceptable toxicity or discontinuation due to investigator or patient preference. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients received docetaxel, of whom 21 also received enzalutamide. Docetaxel was administered for a median of 5.0 cycles and enzalutamide for a median of 12.0 months. With concomitant treatment, geometric mean docetaxel exposure decreased by 11.8%, whereas peak concentrations decreased by 3.7% relative to docetaxel alone. The most common toxicities observed during the period of concomitant therapy were neutropenia (86.4%) and fatigue (77.3%). Common toxicities observed with post-docetaxel enzalutamide were constipation (23.8%), decreased appetite (19.0%), fatigue (19.0%), and musculoskeletal pain (19.0%). Treatment with enzalutamide and docetaxel resulted in prostate-specific antigen decreases in almost all patients based on exploratory analysis of available baseline and on-study prostate-specific antigen data. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of docetaxel and enzalutamide is feasible, although higher rates of neutropenia and neutropenic fever than anticipated were observed. Reductions in docetaxel exposure with enzalutamide coadministration were not considered clinically meaningful. This combination warrants further study in a larger mCRPC population. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3774-81. ©2016 AACR.