Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the Japanese population: A subgroup analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 TITAN study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone in Japanese patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the phase 3, randomized, global TITAN study. METHODS: Men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer randomly (1:1) received 240 mg apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy or matching placebo + androgen deprivation therapy. The primary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints were time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, pain progression, chronic opioid use, and skeletal-related events. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1052 patients included in the TITAN study, 51 (4.85%) were Japanese (apalutamide group, n = 28; placebo group, n = 23). In all, 81.8% of patients in the apalutamide and 71.8% in the placebo group did not experience radiographic progression or death, and the hazard ratio for radiographic progression-free survival favored treatment with apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.712, 95% confidence interval 0.205-2.466; P = 0.59). At 24 months, 85.7% of patients in the apalutamide group and 81.5% in the placebo group were alive, and the hazard ratio for overall survival favored apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.210-3.361; P = 0.805). In the interim analysis, the median radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached in the apalutamide group and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy was delayed following apalutamide treatment. The safety profile of apalutamide in the Japanese subpopulation was comparable with that of the global population, except for skin rash. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present analyses suggest that apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients had favorable efficacy compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone, and these findings are comparable to those in the overall population. Apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy can be considered as one of the therapeutic options for a broad spectrum of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer regardless of prior treatment and disease extent in Japanese patients.

Health-related quality of life after apalutamide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (TITAN): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 TITAN study, the addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved the primary endpoints of overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We aimed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in TITAN, including pain and fatigue. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study, patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (defined as not receiving ADT at the time of metastatic disease progression) aged 18 years and older, receiving continuous ADT (selected at the investigator's discretion), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system, to receive oral apalutamide (four 60 mg tablets, once daily) or matching placebo. Previous localised disease treatment or previous docetaxel for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer were allowed. Randomisation was stratified by Gleason score at diagnosis, region, and previous docetaxel treatment. Randomisation was done using randomly permuted blocks (block size of four). Investigators, research staff, sponsor study team, and patients were masked to the identities of test and control treatments. Patient-reported outcomes were prespecified exploratory endpoints and were the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), and EuroQoL 5D questionnaire 5 level (EQ-5D-5L). BPI and BFI were completed for 7 consecutive days (days -6 to 1 inclusive of each cycle visit), then at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. FACT-P and EQ-5D-5L were completed during cycles 1-7, then every other cycle until the end of treatment, and at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Missing patient-reported outcome assessments were calculated as the expected number of assessments for a visit minus the actual number of assessments received for that visit. For time-to-event endpoints, when median values could not be calculated because less than 50% of patients had degradation, 25th percentiles were compared. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02489318, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2015, and July 25, 2017, 1052 eligible patients were enrolled randomly assigned to apalutamide (n=525) or placebo (n=527). Data cutoff for this analysis of patient-reported outcomes was Nov 23, 2018. Median follow-up for time to pain-related endpoints ranged from 19·4 to 22·1 months. Patients were mostly asymptomatic at baseline: on the BPI-SF pain severity scale of 0-10, median pain scores (indicating worst pain in the past 24 h) were 1·14 (IQR 0-3·17) in the apalutamide group and 1·00 (0-2·86) in the placebo group, and median worst fatigue scores on the BFI were 1·29 (IQR 0-3·29) in the apalutamide group and 1·43 (0·14-3·14) in the placebo group. Patient experience of pain and fatigue (intensity and interference) did not differ between the groups for the duration of treatment. Median time to worst pain intensity progression was 19·09 months (95% CI 11·04-not reached) in the apalutamide group versus 11·99 months (8·28-18·46) in the placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·75-1·06]; p=0·20). Median time to pain interference progression was not reached in either group (95% CI 28·58-not reached in the apalutamide group; not reached-not reached in the placebo group). 25th percentiles for time to pain interference progression were 9·17 months (5·55-11·96) in the apalutamide group and 6·24 months (4·63-7·43) in the placebo group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·73-1·10]; p=0·29). FACT-P total scores and EQ-5D-5L data showed preservation of HRQOL in both groups. The median time to deterioration as determined by FACT-P total score was 8·87 months (95% CI 4·70-11·10) in the apalutamide group and 9·23 months (7·39-12·91) in the placebo group (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·85-1·22]; p=0·85). INTERPRETATION: Apalutamide with ADT is a well-tolerated and effective option for men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The combination significantly improves survival outcomes compared with ADT alone while maintaining HRQOL despite additive androgen blockade. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Apalutamide for Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is an inhibitor of the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor. Whether the addition of apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) would prolong radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with placebo plus ADT among patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer has not been determined. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer to receive apalutamide (240 mg per day) or placebo, added to ADT. Previous treatment for localized disease and previous docetaxel therapy were allowed. The primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 525 patients were assigned to receive apalutamide plus ADT and 527 to receive placebo plus ADT. The median age was 68 years. A total of 16.4% of the patients had undergone prostatectomy or received radiotherapy for localized disease, and 10.7% had received previous docetaxel therapy; 62.7% had high-volume disease, and 37.3% had low-volume disease. At the first interim analysis, with a median of 22.7 months of follow-up, the percentage of patients with radiographic progression-free survival at 24 months was 68.2% in the apalutamide group and 47.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for radiographic progression or death, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.60; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was also greater with apalutamide than with placebo (82.4% in the apalutamide group vs. 73.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 42.2% in the apalutamide group and 40.8% in the placebo group; rash was more common in the apalutamide group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival were significantly longer with the addition of apalutamide to ADT than with placebo plus ADT, and the side-effect profile did not differ substantially between the two groups. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; TITAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02489318.).

A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Study of Epoetin Alfa Versus Best Standard of Care in Anemic Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An open-label, noninferiority study to evaluate the impact of epoetin alfa (EPO) on tumor outcomes when used to treat anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Women with hemoglobin ≤ 11.0 g/dL, receiving first- or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, were randomly assigned to EPO 40,000 IU subcutaneously once a week or best standard of care. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, time to tumor progression, overall response rate, RBC transfusions, and thrombotic vascular events. RESULTS: In 2,098 patients randomly assigned, median PFS (based on investigator-determined disease progression [PD]) was 7.4 months in both groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.089; 95% CI, 0.988 to 1.200); upper bound exceeded prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.15. Median PFS per independent review committee-determined PD was 7.6 months in both groups (HR, 1.028; 95% CI, 0.922 to 1.146); upper bound did not exceed prespecified noninferiority margin. Median overall survival at clinical cutoff (1,337 deaths) was 17.2 months in the EPO and 17.4 months in the best standard of care group (HR, 1.057; 95% CI, 0.949 to 1.177), median time to tumor progression was 7.5 months in both groups (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.991 to 1.209), and overall response rate was 50% versus 51% (odds ratio, 0.950; 95% CI, 0.799 to 1.130). RBC transfusions were 5.8% versus 11.4% (P < .001), and thrombotic vascular events were 2.8% versus 1.4% (P = .038), respectively. CONCLUSION: The primary end point, PFS based on investigator-determined PD, did not meet noninferiority criteria. As a consistency assessment with the primary finding, PFS based on independent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criteria. Overall, this study did not achieve noninferiority objective in ruling out a 15% increased risk in PD/death. RBC transfusion should be the preferred approach for the management of anemia in this population.