Clinical Outcomes of Enzalutamide in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer in Patients Aged <75 and ≥75 Years: ARCHES Post Hoc Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In ARCHES, treatment intensification of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with enzalutamide versus placebo improved clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Understanding the benefits and tolerability of enzalutamide for men aged ≥75 yr may inform disease management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether age is associated with clinical outcomes in mHSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of the multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ARCHES trial in 1150 men with mHSPC (median follow-up [mo]: <75 yr, 44.6; ≥75 yr, 44.3) was performed. INTERVENTION: Randomization 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT; stratification by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), safety, and other secondary endpoints were compared between age groups (<75 and ≥75 yr) and treatment arms (Cox proportional hazard models). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Men aged <75 versus ≥75 yr had longer OS (enzalutamide plus ADT: hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.91; p = 0.02; placebo plus ADT: HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60-1.09; p = 0.13) and rPFS (enzalutamide plus ADT: HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58-1.04; p = 0.12; placebo plus ADT: HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.74-1.30; p = 0.007). Enzalutamide improved OS (<75 yr: HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79; ≥75 yr: HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.09) and secondary efficacy endpoints without evidence of statistical heterogeneity, and was generally well tolerated in both age groups, with minimal quality-of-life impact. Older versus younger patients experienced more frequent dose interruptions (20.2% vs 10.9%) and treatment-emergent adverse events (95.2% vs 89.1%). Post hoc examination and small sample size preclude definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus ADT improved efficacy outcomes and was generally well tolerated despite shorter treatment exposure in older patients, indicating enzalutamide's utility in patients with mHSPC aged <75 and ≥75 yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: Enzalutamide is a drug approved to treat men with prostate cancer. In this report, we compared patients aged <75 and ≥75 yr treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy to determine whether age affected how long they lived without the cancer spreading to other parts of their body. We found that, although younger patients had more favorable survival outcomes, enzalutamide was associated with longer survival and reduced disease spread in both age groups.

Plain language summary looking at how long side effects last after treatment with axitinib is stopped in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a medication that stops cancer cell growth by depriving the cancer cell of the nutrients and oxygen that it needs. Axitinib is used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is a type of kidney cancer that has spread within or beyond the kidney. Axitinib has been approved for the treatment of RCC as either a first treatment option or a second treatment option. It is used as a first treatment option for RCC when combined with a medication that reactivates the immune system (immunotherapy), either avelumab or pembrolizumab. If the advanced RCC starts growing again it can be used as a second treatment option where it is taken by itself. It is essential to conduct studies to assess how well the drug works and whether it has any side effects in order to understand whether it is safe to give to people. This summary reports the combined results of 5 studies and looks at how long side effects last after treatment is temporarily stopped. Researchers found that side effects generally got better in 3 days or less after people stopped taking axitinib on its own. The time it took for side effects to get better was generally shorter than for other similar drugs or combinations of axitinib and immunotherapy. The results of individual studies may vary from these 5 combined study results. Three of the 5 studies were ongoing at the time of this analysis and the final outcomes of those studies may differ from those described in this summary. The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you understand the findings from recent research. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The Efficacy of Enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Oligometastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of ARCHES.

BACKGROUND: Few phase 3 studies have evaluated optimal systemic treatment strategies for patients with oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), who may be at risk of undertreatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes for patients with oligometastatic and polymetastatic HSPC treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a post hoc analysis of data for 927 patients with nonvisceral metastatic HSPC in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d orally) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT with HSPC categorized as oligometastatic (1-5 metastases) or polymetastatic (≥6 metastases). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The treatment effect on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoints was evaluated in terms of the number of metastases. Safety was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HRs). The Brookmeyer and Crowley method was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Kaplan-Meier median values. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Enzalutamide plus ADT improved rPFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001), OS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; p < 0.005), and secondary endpoints in patients with oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease (rPFS: HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.46; p < 0.001; OS: HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were generally similar across subgroups. Limitations include the small numbers of patients with fewer than three metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis demonstrated the utility of enzalutamide, irrespective of metastatic burden or type of oligometastatic disease, and suggests that earlier treatment intensification with systemic potent androgen receptor inhibition is advantageous. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study considered two treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in patients with one to five metastases or six or more metastases. Treatment with enzalutamide plus ADT improved survival and other outcomes over ADT alone, whether patients had few or many metastases.

The impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, risk, and symptom subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups. METHODS: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]). RESULTS: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

Improved Survival With Enzalutamide in Patients With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.In primary analysis, enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC); however, overall survival data were immature. In the phase III, double-blind, global ARCHES trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896), 1,150 patients with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. Here, we report the final prespecified analysis of overall survival (key secondary end point) and an update on rPFS, other secondary end points, and safety. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) progression-free patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT crossed over to open-label enzalutamide plus ADT. As of May 28, 2021 (median follow-up, 44.6 months), 154 of 574 patients randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus ADT and 202 of 576 patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT had died. Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced risk of death by 34% versus placebo plus ADT (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). Enzalutamide plus ADT continued to improve rPFS and other secondary end points. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous reports of long-term enzalutamide use. In conclusion, enzalutamide plus ADT significantly prolongs survival versus placebo plus ADT in patients with mHSPC.

Efficacy of enzalutamide in subgroups of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, disease volume, and risk.

BACKGROUND: While enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly reduces the risk of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and improves overall survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the efficacy in clinically relevant subgroups of patients based on prior local and systemic therapy, disease volume, and risk has not been analyzed to date. These post hoc analyses of the phase 3 ARCHES trial (NCT02677896) evaluated the efficacy of enzalutamide plus ADT according to prior local and systemic treatment, disease volume, and risk, assessed at trial baseline. METHODS: In ARCHES, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 1150 patients with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to receive enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by prior docetaxel therapy and disease volume. Primary endpoint was rPFS. Secondary endpoints included time to prostate-specific antigen progression, symptomatic skeletal events, and prostate-specific antigen and radiographic responses. Analyses of clinical endpoints were completed by prior local therapy, prior docetaxel exposure, CHAARTED (NCT00309985)-defined disease volume, and LATITUDE (NCT01715285)-defined risk groups. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to enzalutamide plus ADT (n = 574) and placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Enzalutamide plus ADT significantly improved rPFS (hazard ratio: 0.39; p < 0.0001), with similar improvements reported in all subgroups based on prior local and docetaxel treatment, disease volume, and risk. Treatment benefits were observed with enzalutamide plus ADT in multiple secondary clinical endpoints in the overall population and all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus ADT demonstrated clinical benefit across all patients with mHSPC, irrespective of prior local and systemic treatment, disease volume, and risk.

A phase 3 randomised study of enzalutamide plus leuprolide and enzalutamide monotherapy in high-risk non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with rising PSA after local therapy: EMBARK study design.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data from controlled clinical trials are available for men who experience biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy for prostate cancer. In the absence of overt metastases, patients with non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) often receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). There is no standard-of-care consensus on optimal ADT timing, although most men are treated prior to metastases, especially those with high-risk features (Gleason score 8-10 or prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) <9-12 months). Given data that ADT plus novel hormonal agents improve survival in men with metastatic CSPC, there is a desire to evaluate these agents earlier in the disease course. The main objective of EMBARK is the comparative assessment of enzalutamide plus leuprolide (luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa)) or enzalutamide monotherapy versus monotherapy LHRHa to improve metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with high-risk nmCSPC PSA recurrence after definitive therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EMBARK is a randomised, phase 3 study of high-risk patients with nmCSPC, a PSADT of ≤9 months and a screening PSA of ≥2 ng/mL above the nadir after radiotherapy (RT) or ≥1 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without postoperative RT. Men (n=1050) are randomised 1:1:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day plus LHRHa or placebo plus LHRHa (double-blind arms) or enzalutamide monotherapy (open-label arm). Treatment is suspended at week 37 if PSA concentrations are <0.2 ng/mL and reinstated if levels rise to ≥2.0 ng/mL with RP or ≥5.0 ng/mL without RP. Patients with PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL at week 37 continue until treatment discontinuation criteria are met. The primary endpoint is MFS comparing enzalutamide plus LHRHa versus placebo plus LHRHa. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is conducted under the guiding principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be disseminated at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319837.

Enzalutamide with androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A subgroup analysis of the phase III ARCHES study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the Japanese subgroup in the phase III, randomized, multinational ARCHES study (NCT02677896) was carried out. Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized to receive enzalutamide or a placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. The primary end-point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end-points included time to prostate-specific antigen progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1150 patients, 92 Japanese patients were randomized to enzalutamide (n = 36) or a placebo (n = 56), plus androgen deprivation therapy; none received prior docetaxel. Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death in Japanese patients by 61% versus the placebo, similar to the overall population. Similar results were observed with secondary end-points, showing clinical benefit of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients. Overall survival data were immature. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 47% and 25% of the enzalutamide and placebo groups, respectively. Nasopharyngitis, hypertension and abnormal hepatic function were reported more frequently in Japanese patients versus the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has clinical benefit with a tolerable safety profile in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, consistent with the overall population.

Time to Resolution of Axitinib-Related Adverse Events After Treatment Interruption in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Combined axitinib and immuno-oncology (IO) therapy is approved for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. Overlapping toxicities represent a clinical challenge. Calculating the time to resolution (TTR) of common axitinib-related adverse events (AEs) after treatment interruption may help to identify AE etiology and determine appropriate management strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 5 randomized or single-arm axitinib monotherapy or combination studies were analyzed. Patients with histologically confirmed clear cell advanced renal cell carcinoma were pooled into 3 cohorts based on treatment received: axitinib monotherapy, axitinib + IO, and other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Any grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, nausea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome were assessed. TTR was defined as the time from treatment interruption/discontinuation to resolution. RESULTS: The axitinib monotherapy cohort comprised 532 patients, the axitinib + IO cohort 541 patients, and the other TKI cohort 882 patients. Median TTR for all AEs (any grade) in the axitinib monotherapy cohort ranged from 1 to 3 days, except for fatigue (8 days). For diarrhea, hypertension, nausea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, median TTRs were longer in the axitinib + IO (4-11 days) and other TKI (7-8 days) cohorts versus the monotherapy cohort. Results were similar when only AEs of grade ≥3 were considered. CONCLUSIONS: The TTR of monotherapeutic axitinib-related AEs is ≤3 days, except for fatigue, and generally shorter than for other single-agent TKIs and axitinib + IO. This has important implications for identifying AE etiology with combined axitinib-IO therapy and implementation of appropriate management strategies. ClinicalTrials.org identifiers: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331.

Updated Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for Patients with Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated with Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNETs) in a phase III trial. The efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with panNETs were confirmed in an open-label phase IV trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical benefit with sunitinib using the combined data from these trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An updated overall survival (OS) in patients with panNETs for the phase IV trial was provided, and an analysis of results from the sunitinib-treated combined cohort from the phase III and IV trials (combined cohort) was conducted to assess PFS, OS, and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The updated median OS for the phase IV trial was 54.1 months (95% CI 37.9-not reached). Investigator-assessed median PFS for the combined cohort (n = 102) was 12.9 months (95% CI 7.4-16.7) with a significant benefit versus placebo in the phase III trial (n = 35) (HR 0.429; 95% CI 0.245-0.752; p = 0.001). Median OS could not be calculated for the combined cohort or placebo group due to the high number of patients censored; however, the estimated HR of 0.303 (CI 0.100-0.921; p = 0.013) favored sunitinib. ORR for the combined cohort was 16.7% (95% CI 10.0-25.3). Sunitinib was well tolerated in both trials with a safety profile similar to previously seen in other studies. CONCLUSIONS: The combined analysis of these studies confirms the objective tumor responses and improvements in PFS observed in the initial phase III trial, providing further support for the clinical benefit of sunitinib in patients with advanced panNETs. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT00428597 and NCT01525550.

Efficacy of Enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Pattern of Metastatic Spread: ARCHES Post Hoc Analyses.

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has previously been shown to improve clinical outcomes in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ARCHES; NCT02677896). Here, we assessed if and how the pattern of metastatic spread impacts efficacy of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in men enrolled in ARCHES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus androgen deprivation therapy or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel treatment. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end points included time to prostate specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event and castration resistance. Post hoc analyses were performed by pattern of metastatic spread based on study entry imaging. RESULTS: Of the overall population with metastases identified at enrollment (1,146), the largest patient subgroups were those with bone metastases only (513) and those with bone plus lymph node metastases (351); there were fewer men with lymph node metastases only (154) and men with visceral±bone or lymph node metastases (128). Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression vs placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with bone metastases only (HR 0.33) and bone plus lymph node metastases (HR 0.31). Similar improvements in secondary end points were also observed in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that treatment with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy provides improvements in men with bone and/or lymph node metastases but may be less effective in men with visceral patterns of spread.

Five-year Survival Prediction and Safety Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Men with Chemotherapy-naïve Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer from the PREVAIL Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PREVAIL study, enzalutamide significantly improved clinical outcomes versus placebo in patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term benefits and risks of enzalutamide in the final prespecified PREVAIL analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a final 5-yr survival analysis of PREVAIL in men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC from the enzalutamide (n = 689) and placebo (n = 693) arms. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Predictors of the primary outcome of overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Long-term adverse events over time were analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At the 5-yr data cutoff, 1382 of 1717 (80%) men had died. Enzalutamide reduced the hazard of death by 17% (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001), despite 65%, 54%, and 43% of placebo-treated patients receiving subsequent docetaxel, abiraterone, and enzalutamide, respectively. Median overall survival was 36 mo (95% CI 34-38) in the enzalutamide arm versus 31 mo (95% CI 29-34) in the placebo arm, with a median follow-up of 69 mo. Prognostic modeling showed 5-yr survival rates of 42%, 24%, and 5% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Greater degrees of confirmed prostate-specific antigen declines (≤3 mo) were associated with greater 5-yr survival. A higher incidence of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events was observed with enzalutamide (6.9% vs 3.8%), with an increase in fatal cardiovascular events (1.6% vs 0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: With >5 yr of follow-up, enzalutamide continued to demonstrate improved survival in patients with mCRPC despite crossover and multiple subsequent effective therapies, balanced against a slightly higher rate of fatal cardiovascular events. PREVAIL is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01212991. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report a maintained long-term survival benefit with enzalutamide and risks with >5 yr of enzalutamide treatment and follow-up in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and identify groups of men with widely different outcomes based on clinical factors.

ARCHES: A Randomized, Phase III Study of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Enzalutamide or Placebo in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide, a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor, has demonstrated significant benefits in metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: ARCHES (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896) is a multinational, double-blind, phase III trial, wherein 1,150 men with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) or placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival. RESULTS: As of October 14, 2018, the risk of radiographic progression or death was significantly reduced with enzalutamide plus ADT versus placebo plus ADT (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50; P < .001; median not reached v 19.0 months). Similar significant improvements in radiographic progression-free survival were reported in prespecified subgroups on the basis of disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. Enzalutamide plus ADT significantly reduced the risk of prostate-specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, castration resistance, and reduced risk of pain progression. More men achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level and/or an objective response with enzalutamide plus ADT (P < .001). Patients in both treatment groups reported a high baseline level of quality of life, which was maintained over time. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 24.3% of patients who received enzalutamide plus ADT versus 25.6% of patients who received placebo plus ADT, with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide with ADT significantly reduced the risk of metastatic progression or death over time versus placebo plus ADT in men with mHSPC, including those with low-volume disease and/or prior docetaxel, with a safety analysis that seems consistent with the safety profile of enzalutamide in previous clinical trials in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

A Phase Ib Study of Axitinib in Combination with Crizotinib in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer or Other Advanced Solid Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of axitinib and crizotinib has a manageable safety and tolerability profile, consistent with the profiles of the individual agents when administered as monotherapy.The antitumor activity reported here for the combination axitinib/crizotinib does not support further study of this combination treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma given the current treatment landscape. BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been successfully used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, resistance eventually develops in most cases. Tyrosine protein kinase Met (MET) expression increases following VEGF inhibition, and inhibition of both has shown additive effects in controlling tumor growth and metastasis. We therefore conducted a study of axitinib plus crizotinib in advanced solid tumors and mRCC. METHODS: This phase Ib study included a dose-escalation phase (starting doses: axitinib 3 mg plus crizotinib 200 mg) to estimate maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with solid tumors and a dose-expansion phase to examine preliminary efficacy in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers were also assessed. RESULTS: No patients in the dose-escalation phase (n = 22) experienced dose-limiting toxicity; MTD was estimated to be axitinib 5 mg plus crizotinib 250 mg. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension (18.2%) and fatigue (9.1%). In the dose-expansion phase, overall response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-54.3), and progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.5-not reached). CONCLUSION: The combination of axitinib plus crizotinib, at estimated MTD, had a manageable safety profile and showed evidence of modest antitumor activity in mRCC.

Pharmacogenomic analyses of sunitinib in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Aim: Evaluate associations between clinical outcomes and SNPs in patients with well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors receiving sunitinib. Patients & methods: Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the association between SNPs and survival outcomes using data from a sunitinib Phase IV (genotyped, n = 56) study. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze objective response rate and genotype associations. Results: After multiplicity adjustment, progression-free and overall survivals were not significantly correlated with SNPs; however, a higher objective response rate was significantly associated with IL1B rs16944 G/A versus G/G (46.4 vs 4.5%; p = 0.001). Conclusion: IL1B SNPs may predict treatment response in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. VEGF pathway SNPs are potentially associated with survival outcomes.

Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors. RESULTS: Of 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.

Sunitinib in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: update of safety data.

AIM: To describe the long-term safety of sunitinib in patients with progressive, well-differentiated, advanced/metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. PATIENTS & METHODS: Sunitinib- and placebo-treated patients from the Phase III study continued to receive sunitinib (37.5 mg on a continuous daily-dosing regimen) in two open-label extension studies. RESULTS: Median (range) treatment exposure: 30.2 (0.7-269.4) and 87.1 (3.9-319.4) weeks for medium-term (n = 41) and long-term-treated (n = 61) populations, respectively. All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE); 47 (45.6%) reported serious AEs. Common all-causality AEs: diarrhea (63.1%); neutropenia (43.7%); abdominal pain (40.8%). Fifteen (14.6%) patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION: The safety of extended sunitinib treatment was consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

First-line axitinib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: exploratory subgroup analyses of Phase III data.

AIM: Efficacy/safety of first-line axitinib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were assigned (2:1) to 5-mg axitinib (n = 48) or 400-mg sorafenib (n = 24) twice daily. Primary end point was progression-free survival. Objective response rate, overall survival and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: For axitinib versus sorafenib, hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.652 (95% CI: 0.340-1.252; p = 0.0989), objective response rate was higher (35.4 vs 16.7%; p = 0.0495), overall survival longer (hazard ratio: 0.739; 95% CI: 0.397-1.375; p = 0.1683). Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (57.4%), diarrhea (55.3%), hypertension (51.1%) were commonest adverse events with axitinib; palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (50.0%) with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Axitinib improved efficacy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma; adverse events were consistent with previous findings.