First-line avelumab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from the phase 1b/2 JAVELIN Chemotherapy Medley study.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy can potentially enhance the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors by promoting immune priming. The phase 1b/2 JAVELIN Chemotherapy Medley trial evaluated first-line avelumab + concurrent chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma or nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Avelumab 800 mg or 1200 mg was administered continuously every 3 weeks (Q3W) with standard doses of cisplatin + gemcitabine in patients with urothelial carcinoma, or carboplatin + pemetrexed in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Dual primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; phase 1b) and confirmed objective response (phase 1b/2). RESULTS: In phase 1b, urothelial carcinoma and NSCLC cohorts received avelumab 800 mg (n=13 and n=6, respectively) or 1200 mg (n=6 each) + chemotherapy. In evaluable patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with avelumab 800 mg or 1200 mg + chemotherapy, DLT occurred in 1/12 (8.3%) and 1/6 (16.7%), respectively; no DLT occurred in the NSCLC cohort. In phase 2, 35 additional patients with urothelial carcinoma received avelumab 1200 mg + chemotherapy. Across all treated patients, safety profiles were similar irrespective of avelumab dose. Objective response rates (95% confidence internal) with avelumab 800 mg or 1200 mg + chemotherapy, respectively, across phase 1b/2, were 53.8% (25.1-80.8) and 39.0% (24.2-55.5) in urothelial carcinoma, and 50.0% (11.8-88.2) and 33.3% (4.3-77.7) in NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary efficacy and safety findings with avelumab + chemotherapy in urothelial carcinoma and NSCLC were consistent with previous studies of similar combination regimens. Conclusions about clinical activity are limited by small patient numbers. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier, NCT03317496.

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ENZA-p): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

What matters most to people with metastatic uveal melanoma? A qualitative study to inform future measurement of health-related quality of life.

Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is a rare cancer with poor prognosis, but novel treatments are emerging. Currently, there are no mUM-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires available for clinical research. We aimed to explore how mUM and its treatment affect HRQL and assess the content validity of existing questionnaires. Participants were patients with mUM and healthcare professionals involved in their care. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Data collection and analysis used an integrative approach involving inductive questions/coding to elicit new concepts and deductive questions/coding based on domains of existing HRQL questionnaires. Initial interviews/focus groups focussed on HRQL questionnaires designed for patients with uveal melanoma or liver metastases. As new concepts were elicited, domains and items from other questionnaires were subsequently added. Seventeen patients and 16 clinicians participated. HRQL concerns assessed by uveal melanoma-specific questionnaires were largely resolved by the time of metastasis. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Immunotherapy Module (FACT-ICM) adequately captured most immunotherapy-related side effects during initial treatment cycles. However, most patients emphasised emotional impacts over physical ones, focussing on the existential threat posed by disease amidst uncertainty about treatment accessibility and effectiveness. Patients were also concerned with treatment burden, including time commitment, travel, need for hospitalisation, and expenses. The relative importance of HRQL issues varied over time and across treatment modalities, with no single questionnaire being sufficient. Pending further development and psychometric testing, clinical researchers may need to take a modular approach to measuring the HRQL impacts of mUM.

Targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and small molecules and peptidomimetics as emerging immunoregulatory agents for melanoma.

Primary cutaneous melanoma is the most lethal of all skin neoplasms and its incidence is increasing. Clinical management of advanced melanoma in the last decade has been revolutionised by the availability of immunotherapies and targeted therapies, used alone and in combination. This article summarizes advances in the treatment of late-stage melanoma including use of protein kinase inhibitors, antibody-based immune checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive immunotherapy, vaccines and more recently, small molecules and peptidomimetics as emerging immunoregulatory agents.

Overall survival with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): secondary outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[18F]FDG) PET-CT. METHODS: TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[18F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete. FINDINGS: 291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1). INTERPRETATION: These results support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[18F]FDG-discordant disease. FUNDING: Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

Circulating Tumour DNA Biomarkers Associated with Outcomes in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Lutetium-177-PSMA-617.

Background: Lutetium-177-prostate-specific membrane antigen- 617 (Lu-PSMA) is an effective therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, treatment responses are heterogeneous despite stringent positron emission tomography (PET)-based imaging selection criteria. Molecularly based biomarkers have potential to refine patient selection and optimise outcomes. Objective: To identify circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) features associated with treatment outcomes for men treated with Lu-PSMA. Design setting and participants: ctDNA from men treated with Lu-PSMA in combination with idronoxil for progressive mCRPC were analysed using an 85-gene customised sequencing assay. ctDNA fractions, molecular profiles, and the presence of alterations in aggressive-variant prostate cancer (AVPC) genes were analysed at baseline, cycle 3 and at disease progression. Intervention: Men received Lu-PSMA with idronoxil every 6 wk for up to six cycles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline and exit PSMA and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (CT) imaging was conducted at baseline and study exit. Single-photon emission CT (SPECT) scans were performed 24 h after Lu-PSMA. Blood samples were collected at baseline,cycle 3 and at disease progression. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess associations and derive hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between molecular factors, imaging features, and clinical outcomes. Results and limitations: Sixty samples from 32 men were sequenced (32 at baseline, 24 at cycle 3, four from patients with disease progression); two samples (baseline, on-treatment) from one individual were excluded from analysis owing to poor quality of the baseline sequencing data. Alterations in AVPC genes were associated with shorter prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in univariate (HR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5-7.7; p = 0.0036; and HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.7; p = 0.0063, respectively) and multivariate analyses (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13; p = 0.0014; and HR 4.1, 95% CI 1.6-11; p = 0.004). Conclusions: ctDNA alterations in AVPC genes were associated with shorter PSA PFS and OS among men treated with Lu-PSMA and intermittent idronoxil. These candidate molecular biomarkers warrant further study to determine whether they have predictive value and potential to guide synergistic combination strategies to enhance outcomes for men treated with Lu-PSMA for mCRPC. Patient summary: Certain DNA/gene changes detected in the blood of men with advanced prostate cancer were associated with shorter benefit from lutetium PSMA, a targeted radioactive therapy. This information may be useful in determining which men may benefit most from this treatment, but additional research is needed.

Globe Salvage and Vision Preservation by Neoadjuvant Darovasertib and Crizotinib in Uveal Melanoma.

PURPOSE: To report the effective use of neoadjuvant darovasertib and crizotinib in a patient with a large uveal melanoma (UM) in his only functional eye. DESIGN: Case report. SUBJECTS: One patient with T4b UM. INTERVENTION: Neoadjuvant darovasertib and crizotinib, followed by plaque brachytherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective tumor response and conversion from planned enucleation to placement of fovea- and optic nerve-sparing plaque brachytherapy. RESULTS: A patient with a history of left eye blindness from retinal artery occlusion presented with rapidly declining right eye vision due to a primary UM measuring 18 mm in maximal diameter and 16.5 mm in maximal thickness. To salvage vision, neoadjuvant treatment was initiated using darovasertib and crizotinib. After 6 months of neoadjuvant treatment, which included intraocular lens replacement for tumor-associated cataract, the tumor regressed to 14.1 mm in maximal diameter and 2.6 mm in maximal thickness, enabling treatment with plaque brachytherapy rather than enucleation. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of darovasertib and crizotinib for UM is an effective neoadjuvant strategy that warrants further investigation as an approach to improve visual outcomes from the treatment of primary UM. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The other authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Three-Year Overall Survival with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp, a T-cell receptor-bispecific molecule that targets glycoprotein 100 and CD3, is approved for adult patients who are positive for HLA-A*02:01 and have unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma. The primary analysis in the present phase 3 trial supported a long-term survival benefit associated with the drug. METHODS: We report the 3-year efficacy and safety results from our open-label, phase 3 trial in which HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), with randomization stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, median overall survival was 21.6 months in the tebentafusp group and 16.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.87). The estimated percentage of patients surviving at 3 years was 27% in the tebentafusp group and 18% in the control group. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the tebentafusp group were rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), pruritus (70%), and hypotension (38%). Most tebentafusp-related adverse events occurred early during treatment, and no new adverse events were observed with long-term administration. The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events continued to be low in both treatment groups (2% in the tebentafusp group and 5% in the control group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-year analysis supported a continued long-term benefit of tebentafusp for overall survival among adult HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; IMCgp100-202 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).

Neoadjuvant Cabazitaxel plus Abiraterone/Leuprolide Acetate in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer: ACDC-RP Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Early treatment intensification with neoadjuvant therapy may improve outcomes in patients with high-risk, localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Our objective was to compare pathologic, oncologic, and safety outcomes of neoadjuvant abiraterone acetate plus leuprolide acetate with or without cabazitaxel prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, multicenter, phase II trial randomized men with clinically localized, D'Amico high-risk prostate cancer to neoadjuvant abiraterone acetate (1,000 mg/day) and leuprolide acetate (22.5 mg every 3 months) with or without cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2) prior to radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was pathologic complete response (pCR) or minimal residual disease (MRD). Secondary outcomes included surgical margins, lymph node involvement, pathologic stage, 12-month biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates, and safety profile. RESULTS: The per-protocol population consisted of 70 patients [cabazitaxel arm (Arm A): 37, no cabazitaxel arm (Arm B): 33]. Median patient age and prostate-specific antigen levels were 63.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 58.0-68.0] and 21.9 ng/mL (IQR, 14.6-42.8), respectively. pCR/MRD occurred in 16 (43.2%) versus 15 patients (45.5%) in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.85). pCR occurred in two (5.4%) versus three patients (9.1%) in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.66). Patients with ≤ 25% total biopsy cores positive had increased odds of pCR/MRD (P = 0.04). Patients with pCR/MRD had superior 12-month BRFS rates (96.0% vs. 62.0%, P = 0.03). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 42.5% and 23.7% of patients in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cabazitaxel addition to abiraterone acetate/leuprolide acetate prior to radical prostatectomy did not improve pCR/MRD in clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

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

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

A signal-seeking Phase 2 study of olaparib and durvalumab in advanced solid cancers with homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of PARP plus PD-L1 inhibition (olaparib + durvalumab, O + D) in patients with advanced solid, predominantly rare cancers harbouring homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 48 patients were treated with O + D, 16 with BRCA1/2 alterations (group 1) and 32 with other select HRR alterations (group 2). Overall, 32 (66%) patients had rare or less common cancers. The primary objective of this single-arm Phase II trial was a progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted on archival tumour tissue and serial bloods. RESULTS: The PFS6 rate was 35% and 38% with durable objective tumour responses (OTR) in 3(19%) and 3(9%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Rare cancers achieving an OTR included cholangiocarcinoma, perivascular epithelioid cell (PEComa), neuroendocrine, gallbladder and endometrial cancer. O + D was safe, with five serious adverse events related to the study drug(s) in 3 (6%) patients. A higher proportion of CD38 high B cells in the blood and higher CD40 expression in tumour was prognostic of survival. CONCLUSIONS: O + D demonstrated no new toxicity concerns and yielded a clinically meaningful PFS6 rate and durable OTRs across several cancers with HRR defects, including rare cancers.

Monitoring AKT activity and targeting in live tissue and disease contexts using a real-time Akt-FRET biosensor mouse.

Aberrant AKT activation occurs in a number of cancers, metabolic syndrome, and immune disorders, making it an important target for the treatment of many diseases. To monitor spatial and temporal AKT activity in a live setting, we generated an Akt-FRET biosensor mouse that allows longitudinal assessment of AKT activity using intravital imaging in conjunction with image stabilization and optical window technology. We demonstrate the sensitivity of the Akt-FRET biosensor mouse using various cancer models and verify its suitability to monitor response to drug targeting in spheroid and organotypic models. We also show that the dynamics of AKT activation can be monitored in real time in diverse tissues, including in individual islets of the pancreas, in the brown and white adipose tissue, and in the skeletal muscle. Thus, the Akt-FRET biosensor mouse provides an important tool to study AKT dynamics in live tissue contexts and has broad preclinical applications.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) has historically been associated with short survival and limited effective treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been trialed in mUM; however, robust conclusions regarding their efficacy are difficult to draw given small study sizes and heterogeneous patient populations. Five databases were searched using a combination of 'ICI' and 'mUM' headings, and data on patient demographics, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted. Pooled ORR was calculated using a random effects model and the inverse variance method. Available Kaplan-Meier OS and PFS curves were used to construct summary OS and PFS plots, from which median values were derived. Pooled ORR was 9.2% overall (95% CI 7.2-11.8) [4.1% for anti-CTLA4 (95% CI 2.1-7.7), 7.1% for anti-PD(L)1 (95% CI 4.5-10.9) and 13.5% for anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 (95% CI 10.0-18.0)]. Median OS was 11.5 months overall (95% CI 9.5-13.8) [8.0 months for anti-CTLA4 (95% CI 5.5-9.9), 11.7 months for anti-PD(L)1 (95% CI 9.0-14.0) and 16.0 months for ipilimumab plus anti-PD1 (95% CI 11.5-17.7) ( P < 0.001)]. Median PFS was 3.0 months overall (95% CI 2.9-3.1). ICIs have limited efficacy in mUM and a recommendation for their use must consider the balance of benefit and risk for individual patients if no other options are available. Further biomarker profiling studies may be helpful in assessing which patients will benefit from ICIs, in particular the addition of ipilimumab to anti-PD1 therapy.

Chemotherapy in Cutaneous Melanoma: Is There Still a Role?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the preceding decade, the management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma has been revolutionised with the development of highly effective therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (specifically CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors) and targeted therapies (BRAF and MEK inhibitors). The role of chemotherapy in the contemporary management of melanoma is undefined. RECENT FINDINGS: Extended analyses highlight substantially improved 5-year survival rates of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with first-line therapies. However, most patients will progress on these first-line treatments. Sequencing of chemotherapy following failure of targeted and immunotherapies is associated with low objective response rates and short progression-free survival, and thus, meaningful benefits to patients are minimal. Chemotherapy has limited utility in the contemporary management of cutaneous melanoma (with a few exceptions, discussed herein) and should not be the standard treatment sequence following failure of first-line therapies. Instead, enrolment onto clinical trials should be standard-of-care in these patients.

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

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

Patient outcomes following a response biomarker-guided approach to treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-I&T in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (Re-SPECT).

Background: 177LuPSMA is an effective treatment in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer with trials adopting a standardised dose interval. Adjusting treatment intervals utilising early response biomarkers may improve patient outcomes. Objective: This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) based on treatment interval adjustment utilising 177LuPSMA 24-h SPECT/CT (177Lu-SPECT) and early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. Design: Retrospective analysis of a clinical 177Lu-PSMA-I&T treatment programme. Methods: In all, 125 men were treated with 6-weekly 177LuPSMA-I&T [median 3 cycles, interquartile range (IQR): 2-4], median dose 8.0 GBq [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5-8.0]. Imaging screening involved 68GaPSMA-11 PET/diagnostic CT. 177Lu-SPECT/diagnostic CT was acquired following each therapy, and clinical assessments 3-weekly. Following dose 2 (week 6), a composite PSA and 177Lu-SPECT/CT imaging response [partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD)] determined ongoing management. Response group (RG) 1 (marked reduction in PSA/imaging PR) break in treatment until subsequent PSA rise, then re-treatment. RG 2 (stable or reduced PSA and/or imaging SD) 6-weekly treatments until six doses, or no longer clinically benefitting. RG 3 (rise in PSA and/or imaging PD) recommended for an alternative treatment. Results: Overall PSA50% response rate (PSARR) was 60% (75/125), median PSA-PFS 6.1 months (95%CI: 5.5-6.7), and median OS 16.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-20.1). 35% (41/116) were classified as RG 1, 34% (39/116) RG 2, and 31% (36/116) RG 3. PSARRs by RG were 95% (38/41), 74% (29/39), and 8% (3/36); median PSA-PFS rates were 12.1 months (95%CI: 9.3-17.4), 6.1 months (95%CI: 5.8-9.0), and 2.6 months (95%CI: 1.6-3.1); and OS rates were 19.2 months (95%CI: 16.8-20.7), 13.2 months (95%CI: 12.0-18.8), and 11.2 months (95%CI: 8.7-15.6) for RG 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median months of 'treatment holiday' for RG 1 was 6.1 months (IQR: 3.4-8.7). Nine men had received prior 177LuPSMA-617 and were retreated with 177LuPSMA-I&T, with a PSARR of 56% on re-treatment. Conclusion: Personalising dosing regimens using early response biomarkers with 177LuPSMA has the potential to achieve similar treatment responses to continuous dosing while allowing treatment breaks or intensification. Further evaluation of early response biomarker-guided treatment regimens in prospective trials is warranted. Plain Language Summary: Lutetium-PSMA therapy is a new therapy for metastatic prostate cancer that is well tolerated and effective. However, not all men respond equally, with some responding very well and others progressing early. Personalising treatments require tools that can accurately measure treatment responses, preferably early in the treatment course, so adjustments to treatment can be made. Lutetium-PSMA can measure tumour sites after each therapy by taking whole body 3D images at 24 h using a small radiation wave from the treatment itself. This is called a SPECT scan. Previous work has shown that both prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and changes in tumour volume on a SPECT scan can predict how patients will respond to treatment as early as dose 2. This study demonstrates that stratifying how men are treated based on the results of the 6-week SPECT scan and PSA response potentially allows a third of men to have break in treatment and that these men have both longer time to disease progression and OS. Men with an increase in tumour volume and increase in PSA early in treatment (6 weeks) had shorter time to disease progression and OS. Men with early biomarker disease progression were offered alternative treatments early in an attempt to allow the opportunity to allow a more effective potential therapy, if one was available. The study is an analysis of a clinical programme, and was not a prospective trial. As such, there are potential biases that could influence results. Hence, while the study is encouraging for the use of early response biomarkers to guide better treatment decisions, this must be validated in a well-designed clinical trial.

Integrated, Longitudinal Analysis of Cell-free DNA in Uveal Melanoma.

Uveal melanomas are rare tumors arising from melanocytes that reside in the eye. Despite surgical or radiation treatment, approximately 50% of patients with uveal melanoma will progress to metastatic disease, most often to the liver. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing is a promising technology due to the minimally invasive sample collection and ability to infer multiple aspects of tumor response. We analyzed 46 serial cfDNA samples from 11 patients with uveal melanoma over a 1-year period following enucleation or brachytherapy (n = ∼4/patient) using targeted panel, shallow whole genome, and cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing. We found detection of relapse was highly variable using independent analyses (P = 0.06-0.46), whereas a logistic regression model integrating all cfDNA profiles significantly improved relapse detection (P = 0.02), with greatest power derived from fragmentomic profiles. This work provides support for the use of integrated analyses to improve the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA detection using multi-modal cfDNA sequencing. Significance: Here, we demonstrate integrated, longitudinal cfDNA sequencing using multi-omic approaches is more effective than unimodal analysis. This approach supports the use of frequent blood testing using comprehensive genomic, fragmentomic, and epigenomic techniques.